Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Housing Legislation

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [30922]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I propose to make provision, through an Order in Council, for Northern Ireland to move from the present mandatory grants scheme to the broadly discretionary scheme provided for in the Bill.
I also propose to make provision for construction contracts along the lines of part II of the Bill by means of an Order in Council under the negative resolution procedure, while the Bill already provides for the provisions of part III on the registration of architects to extend to Northern Ireland.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Minister for that reply and his encouraging response to extend the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland. However, he missed one item. We are advised by Ministers in Committee about the involvement of local government in the administration of a great number of those initiatives. Will the Minister take action to involve local government in Northern Ireland with some of the administration of the Bill, as that would encourage local people to be closer to the people and decision making?

Mr. Moss: There is already machinery for negotiation and discussion with local authorities on many aspects of Northern Ireland legislation. The hon. Gentleman might be referring to an item in the Bill on home energy. That

will become the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development, which will take charge of the Northern Ireland energy efficiency scheme. However, there will be close liaison with local authorities on that and other matters.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is there any point in introducing further grant legislation when there are inordinate delays in processing those grants?

Mr. Moss: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we are experiencing some delay at the moment, but we are taking steps on repair grants to make sure that there are no delays in future. I would point out that we have steadily increased spending on private sector housing grants in Northern Ireland from £32 million in 1993–94 to £47 million in the coming financial year.

Inward Investment

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures on inward investment to Northern Ireland. [30923]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): During the year ended 31 March 1996, Northern Ireland secured 35 inward investment projects, offering 4,869 jobs and representing a total investment of £432 million. It was our best ever year for inward investment.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply and for the good news about inward investment in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one of the hidden bonuses of an IRA ceasefire would be the creation of even more inward investment and more jobs, which would help the people whom the IRA keeps saying it is trying to help—those in Republican areas who are currently out of work? That would be an extra boost to the economy of the area and the future of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best incentive to inward investment would be political stability and a firm and lasting peace. Certainly, everybody who is involved in politics in Northern Ireland must take every opportunity to remind those who pursue violence as a means of pursuing their political purposes that they do a disservice to their community, as my hon. Friend has set out. Peace can bring jobs, jobs can bring prosperity, and prosperity is what the people of Northern Ireland want.

Sir James Molyneaux: Given the excellent record of the Industrial Development Board in attracting investment from many parts of the world, would not those efforts be greatly enhanced by the establishment of an all-party economic committee based in both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that the matter has been of interest to him for some time. I also know that my noble Friend Lady Denton regards the assistance of Members of both Houses in promoting the economy and economic development in Northern Ireland as very valuable. I am sure that she will look for further support in that direction.
On the subject of using committees to promote the values of investing in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman should not overlook the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which can be used for that purpose.

Mr. McGrady: I join the Minister in welcoming the good news which he has articulated this afternoon, especially that of the past week, with the announcement of 1,800 jobs in west Belfast, Cookstown, Newtownabbey and Larne out of the total of 4,800 that he mentioned. Great praise is due to the Industrial Development Board and the Department for that achievement.
In no way detracting from that praise and credibility, may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, yet again, the statistics for 1995–96, which I received in a written answer, show that there is no new inward investment in the entire area of the districts of Newry and Mourn, Down and Banbridge? Of the total number of visits either by potential investors or by industrialists, less than 5 per cent. and 0 per cent. respectively were made to those areas. Will the Minister make an effort to ensure that would-be investment is directed to areas where there is high, consistent and endemic unemployment, as well as areas that are benefiting from worthwhile endeavours?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and his congratulations on the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the past year. It is interesting to note that the London-Belfast air route is now the second busiest in Europe, which says something for Northern Ireland's prospects. Industry and investment cannot be directed to places; they can be encouraged. Obviously, my noble Friend Lady Denton does what she can to ensure that businesses that go to Northern Ireland are spread as effectively as possible.
I have noticed that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Stewarts Supermarkets Ltd. has been granted planning approval to develop a supermarket on the site of the old Albion clothing factory in Newcastle and Cottage Catering at Donaghcloney was recently awarded a FEOGA grant towards its expansion; so there is also development in his constituency.

Decommissioning

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the issue of decommissioning paramilitary arms. [30924]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government are co-operating closely in drawing up legislation designed to underpin any decommissioning scheme emerging from the talks process.

Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that, given the appalling history of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, it is essential to address decommissioning? Given that the whole House wants a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we have all-party talks. Will he tell us the precise criteria by which he would be prepared to admit Sinn Fein to those talks?

Sir John Wheeler: The criteria for the admission of Sinn Fein to the talks process are well established. First, there must be an unequivocal ceasefire; then Sinn Fein will gain entry to the talks process. But it must agree to the Mitchell principles. All the parties attending the talks process so far have so agreed. There is no excuse for the continuing violence in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. The sooner those who talk about a commitment to democracy choose to honour that commitment, the greater will be the progress towards peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the real task facing us now is to take the gun for ever out of our politics? In my own opinion and judging by my own experience, we now have the best opportunity ever to do so. Will the Minister reaffirm the fact that the real challenge that now faces us is that, although the talks process threatens no section of our people, it in effect challenges all of us to come up with the new thinking that will accommodate both our traditions and give us the lasting stability that all sections of our people are now screaming for?

Sir John Wheeler: I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman; he is quite right. If there is to be progress, all our voices must be used to stop, for example, the petrol bomb attacks which occur regularly. There have been 62 such attacks in Northern Ireland since 1 January. There must also be an end to the appalling cycle of violence through punishment attacks, of which there have been no fewer than 407 since August 1994. So long as those events are taking place, there will not be the confidence within the community and among the democratic parties which foregather for the talks process that the terrorist groups genuinely seek to take the gun and the Semtex out of politics.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister encouraged, as we are, by the fact that the loyalist paramilitaries have now been in ceasefire mode for 20 months, which is longer than any other ceasefire during the past 25 or 26 years? Is he aware that the elected representatives associated with the loyalist paramilitaries have given their assent to the Mitchell principles? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty that those people will face when they agree in principle to abide in every way by the Mitchell principles, but feel unable to put that into tangible effect because there is no pro rata agreement or arrangement by the republican paramilitaries? Does he agree that we must all try to establish the confidence-building measures that will encourage progress in that respect?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise confidence-building measures. Of course people can sign up to the six Mitchell principles, but that means that they must use their influence, they must condemn and, so far as they can, they must ensure that punishment attacks, petrol bombing and racketeering all end, so that, progressively, the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy a peaceful environment. It is extraordinary, for example, that Sinn Fein could not even condemn the murder of a detective constable in the Republic of Ireland last week.

Rev. William McCrea: Is it not true that, although there is much talk about the IRA-Sinn Fein wanting to come into the talks process at some time, at present, while the talks are going on, those people are actually regrouping, restocking and retraining with the weaponry of war? Is it not also true that a mere declaration for the Mitchell principles will not be acceptable, and that there must also be a surrender of weapons and of the teeth of war if we are to have peace?
Is it not strange that, as I read in the paper today, the Irish Republic has recruited 800 extra guards along the border to keep cattle from Northern Ireland out of the south—the most expensive security operation in 25 years, and indeed in the history of the island—yet it could not use those 800 troops to stop the terrorists coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the Provisional IRA has proved to be a formidably organised terrorist structure, and it is doing what he describes. If Sinn Fein is to be part of the talks process, an unequivocal ceasefire must be announced, followed by Sinn Fein signing up to the six Mitchell principles, which must then be honoured. During the weeks after that, a start to decommissioning will be made. Until those events occur, there will not be confidence among those seeking a democratic way forward for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse 100 per cent. the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is the only key to the door of a genuine ceasefire and lasting peace? Does he accept that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the religious divide—believe that weapons should be handed in? Would it not be a betrayal of the trust of the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland—whether nationalist or Unionist—if the Government allowed terrorists to retain their weapons?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right, but there are many keys on the key ring, including that of talks and negotiations. The most important key of all is the commitment to decommissioning that is part of the six Mitchell principles. Once made, it must be honoured. Once decommissioning starts, people will believe that the process will gain momentum. The horror of the murder of the Garda constable in the Republic of Ireland last week has struck home widely in the island of Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that, overwhelmingly, the people want to see the start of decommissioning and a total end to violence.

Elections

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the motivation of Sinn Fein in taking part in the Northern Ireland elections. [30925]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None, Madam Speaker. It may be supposed that Sinn Fein wished to qualify itself to participate in all-party negotiations. But it is excluding

itself from these, because both Governments have stipulated that there must first be an unequivocal restoration by the IRA of the 1994 ceasefire.

Mr. Robathan: Further to the answer by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the IRA and Sinn Fein are playing cynical games with the peace process and with the lives of people in Northern Ireland? Are they not using a ceasefire as a bargaining counter, dangling it as a lure in front of the noses of the Government and both communities in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that Sinn Fein is not allowed near peace negotiations unless a total, genuine and permanent commitment to peace is made?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is certainly required by the people of Northern Ireland, and far more widely. The Irish and British Governments are at one in stipulating that, before Sinn Fein can enter the negotiations, the IRA must restore unequivocally the 1994 ceasefire. It is wholly incompatible with a professed commitment to peaceful and democratic methods to be associated inextricably with an organisation that has used arms for nationalist purposes in the past and refuses to restore the 1994 ceasefire.

Mr. Trimble: In those elections, the people of Northern Ireland elected delegates to a forum, which will have its first meeting tomorrow. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in wishing it well, because it can and will make a significant contribution to dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that Sinn Fein can tomorrow have its mandate recognised by taking its places in the forum and that, if it fails to do so, we can conclude only that its commitment to democracy is as hypocritical as its commitment to peace?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the forum, as declared in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996, is to promote dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein is not prepared to take its place in a body with such objectives, what conclusion should be drawn? The hon. Gentleman correctly reminds the House that Sinn Fein is entitled by virtue of its election successes alone to take its places in the forum. I believe that people in Northern Ireland, and much more widely, will look to see whether Sinn Fein is there and will draw their own conclusions if it is not.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the problem with the public having confidence in Sinn Fein-IRA saying that it has a total and permanent commitment to peaceful settlement of the problem is the fact that it retains its arms? If it retains its arms during negotiations, it could at any stage resort again to violence. For the public to have any confidence in its word, it needs to give up those arms.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course my hon. Friend is right in associating the issue of arms and their decommissioning with confidence by everybody else that Sinn Fein is wholly committed to peaceful means, as both Governments have insisted all parties must be if they are


to participate in all-party negotiations. It is a question of confidence, and there can be no compatibility in a democracy with the retention of arms for the purpose of holding them illegally to secure political advantage.
The arms must begin to be decommissioned alongside the negotiations to which Sinn Fein has secured a mandate by way of the elective process on 30 May, but from which it is excluding itself because there is no restoration of the ceasefire. Once that happens, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it must make the declaration which everyone else has made of commitment to the Mitchell principles and then it must, at the same stage, address decommissioning in the way that Mitchell's report, by way of a compromise, has recommended; that is, decommissioning begins alongside the negotiations—not at the end, not at the beginning, but during the negotiations.

Dr. Hendron: I know that the Secretary of State will agree that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland of both traditions want the IRA to call a ceasefire forthwith. They want an end to punishment beatings and to the daily intimidation in my constituency.
On Sinn Fein's motivation for fighting the recent election, hon. Members know that most parties in Northern Ireland participated in the election because it was imposed. It was an unnecessary election. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for all parties, including Sinn Fein, to participate right away? I appreciate his points on the ceasefire.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course that is right. There would not have been all-party negotiations, as a matter of reality and practice, had there not been an elective process first. That was recognised several months ago and the process has now taken place. It is very necessary that those who have been elected should take their place at every stage of the negotiations if the full purpose that the House—among other bodies—required is to be achieved. Of course that is the case. That extends right across the board and it includes Sinn Fein, which received an elective mandate, principally, I believe, from people who wanted to see it demonstrating its commitment to peaceful methods. Let it end its self-imposed exclusion now.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend said, does he believe that it ill behoved certain sections of the British press to show a photograph of Messrs. Adams and McGuinness that portrayed them as having been locked out of the talks, when they had locked themselves out? Is it not the height of cynicism for Sinn Fein to take part in democratic elections and then not fully uphold the principles of democracy?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree warmly with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. I have made my views known about the second part, but let me say a few words about what he said at the beginning. Those photographs dutifully and predictably appearing in the newspapers of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness peering through the bars were deeply misleading. Why was the reality not shown of a gateway open to them, through which they passed in order to have explained to them within the talks building why they were not entitled to take part in the negotiations?

Newspaper after newspaper played straight into their hands by showing misleading pictures which suggested quite the opposite of the reality.

Ms Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State accept our acknowledgement and welcome of the progress that has been made this week while at the same time we add our condolences to those of the Minister of State to the family of Garda McCabe? Does he agree that, whatever the individual motivations may be, the persistence of a culture of blaming and finger pointing will be inimical to the talks process? Does he agree that the talks process will be greatly helped by the presence of Senator Mitchell and his team? It is unfortunate that the failure of the constitutional parties to reach agreement has turned attention away from the crucial fact that the absence of a ceasefire is keeping Sinn Fein away from the talks and that we would like that ceasefire to occur as soon as possible.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for that assurance, which comes as no surprise, and also for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning.
As for the central part of the hon. Lady's question, it is perhaps best to concentrate on the outcome of the first two days of difficult discussions. It was inevitable that they would be difficult, but leadership and courage have been shown and an outcome has been reached, which resulted yesterday in the process beginning, with Senator Mitchell in the chair and the other two chairmen appointed. Progress was made and I believe that we shall move on constructively from that beneficial process.

Peace Programme Funding

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the disbursement of the European peace programme grant aid to Northern Ireland. [30926]

Sir John Wheeler: A total of £5.53 million has been paid out to approved projects and funding bodies. This consists of £4.147 million from the European Commission and £1.383 million of matching funding.

Mrs. Jackson: What external monitoring procedures has the Minister put in place to monitor progress and to have a view to applying for an extension to the funding regime beyond 1998? Will he give assurances that he sees the grant aid programme both now and in the future as additional to existing Northern Ireland funding regimes?

Sir John Wheeler: It will be possible for the funding to continue—we hope beyond the period that has already been approved. There is a substantial arrangement for measuring accountability. Not only has a novel delivery structure been established but the House of Commons, through the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will be able to monitor because part of the additional funding which is provided comes from the Northern Ireland block. In addition, the European Parliament has its own arrangements for monitoring expenditure. So there are many and considerable arrangements for monitoring and scrutiny.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that, despite his confidence that the monitoring arrangements are right, the European Parliament does not have a great record in monitoring European fraud and that the novel arrangements for distributing the money leave many gates open for misappropriation? Can we have an assurance that, when the funds run out, councils and councillors will not be left with extra expenses when community bodies and business men run away from their commitments because they do not have their hands on public money?

Sir John Wheeler: No Finance Minister can give a copper-bottomed guarantee about what will happen in the future when funds may no longer be available. There will be a review of priorities and financial needs at that time. The monitoring programme and the monitoring committee, which is local in Northern Ireland, will be well seized of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. There will not be dependency on European Parliament structures alone—local arrangements and the responsibilities that the House has in monitoring the use of public money will also be taken into account.

Mr. Dowd: What action is the Minister pursuing to ensure that all such expenditure is directed to produce the most beneficial and enduring long-term effects? What steps is he taking to dissuade the Northern Ireland Office from its disproportionate concentration on grand capital schemes, rather than seeking to make progress with the agreement of the other social partners and organisations in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: The bodies that approve the expenditure decide who the beneficiaries of the funding will be. That is inevitably the case. It is essential that as much of the money as possible provides schemes that are of lasting benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and are not superficial. It is the objective of the Northern Ireland department responsible for these matters to ensure that that happens.

Information Super-highway

Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in constructing the information super-highway in Northern Ireland. [30927]

Sir John Wheeler: Significant progress has been made in developing an information super-highway in Northern Ireland. In early 1994, a major project was initiated by the business development service on behalf of Northern Ireland departments, their agencies and the wider public sector. In February 1996, the information society initiative was launched by my noble Friend Baroness Denton.

Mr. Jones: What plans does the Minister have to ensure that every citizen of Northern Ireland has access to the information super-highway? What help is he giving schools to ensure that they can plug in to the information super-highway? What steps is he taking to ensure that terrorists do not abuse the information super-highway for their own purposes?

Sir John Wheeler: The business development service, in conjunction with consultants, is carrying out a telecommunications strategy study to ensure that the very best communications infrastructure is available to Government Departments well into the 21st century. In Northern Ireland, Cable Tel is in the process of establishing a broad-band infrastructure, which it is hoped will meet the hon. Gentleman's needs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the implications for the education sector. The use of these facilities by terrorists is a matter that has to be pursued on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty of constraint.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how Sinn Fein-IRA is able to have a world wide web address? The cause of nationalism has been promoted using the world wide web. Can we ensure that the cause of peace is given an equal opportunity to be promoted on the world wide web? Will the Government ensure that the British Government's point of view, and that of the Unionists, are also put out on the world wide web?

Sir John Wheeler: I assure my hon. Friend that the Northern Ireland Office is making use of the facility to get across information across about the achievements of Northern Ireland. Political parties will have to judge their use of the facilities. I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend.

Drinking Water

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the operation of the drinking water supply system in Northern Ireland. [30929]

Mr. Moss: The Department of the Environment's water service assesses the drinking water supply system on a continuous operational basis. A water resource strategy has recently been completed and reviewed in the light of experience of the 1995 drought.

Mr. Forsythe: As the vast majority of Northern Ireland's local councils oppose the fluoridation of drinking water in Northern Ireland, will the Minister assure the House that the will of the people and of elected representatives will prevail in this matter, rather than that of unelected and unrepresentative board members?

Mr. Moss: Boards must take into consideration district councils' views, but they must also consider their duty to improve the health and social well-being of their populations. Until I have considered the requests from health and social services boards in detail, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the consultation exercise, but it is vital for them to demonstrate appropriate and thorough consultation.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence of BSE in the Northern Ireland herd for the most recent year for which figures are available. [30930]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: In 1995, there were 170 cases of BSE in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prentice: Mercifully, Northern Ireland is largely free of BSE, but what steps have been taken in the framework document to ensure that herds in Northern Ireland can be certified BSE-free? While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to comment on the revelations in the science magazine Nature, published today, that Britain's exports of contaminated feed doubled after that contaminated feed had been banned in this country? Was that not criminally irresponsible?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not believe in commenting on texts that I have not read. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland producers that we have an electronic system of tracing beasts back to the farm of their birth. We can identify the life history of every animal, including whether it has ever been associated with a herd infected with BSE. That is a great advantage, which I trust will serve the interests of Northern Ireland producers quickly in terms of having the ban lifted.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State appreciate our dependence on beef exports in Northern Ireland, and that we cannot survive this blanket ban much longer, especially not until other regions of the UK catch up with our traceability records? What does the European Union expect from us in Northern Ireland? What is its criterion? What assurances does it need? Will he seek to enable Northern Ireland to meet those assurances as soon as possible?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and know how greatly he is concerned about these matters. Seventy per cent. of all Northern Ireland-produced beef is exported, not just over the water, but outside the UK. It is a matter of enormous importance to Northern Ireland. It has been accepted reluctantly that Northern Ireland must take its place with the whole of the UK in getting the ban lifted, but there are considerable advantages, which I have just alluded to, that Northern Ireland can pray in aid. The European Union has never given clear criteria to the lifting of the ban, but it is clear that it expects more extensive culling to take place. The Government believe—indeed, they know—that there is no scientific justification for the ban and they have presented their eradication plan to the Commission. I am confident that Northern Ireland will be well placed to meet any criteria that may eventually be defined. They should be defined straight away. All farmers throughout the UK receive the same compensation for 30-month and above stock that is compulsorily slaughtered.

Mr. Illsley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some optimism among Ulster Farmers Union members that the framework document for BSE's eradication will be accepted by the European Union? That will be of advantage to Northern Ireland farmers, because 90 per cent. of their herds are grass fed, there is a low incidence of BSE, and the tracing system is in place. If the framework document is accepted, and if herds in Northern Ireland meet the conditions in that document, will the Secretary of State support the lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland before other regions of the United Kingdom?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the framework document for eradication is met, it will be applicable to the whole of

the United Kingdom—although not every region may benefit at the same time. As I have said, it seems as though Northern Ireland will be able to benefit much sooner. I look forward to that occurring, as Northern Ireland is very well placed.

Primary School Budgets

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of primary school budgets. [30932]

Mr. Ancram: The total funding available for delegation to primary schools, including resources for the primary 1 initiative in 1996–97, is estimated at £275 million. That represents an increase of 4.55 per cent. from 1995–96.

Mr. Taylor: I have visited some 20 primary schools in Strangford in the past three months. Is the Minister aware that there is a decline in morale in primary schools, that many schools are operating on deficit budgets, that primary school teachers are being made redundant this year, that pupil-teacher ratios are worsening, that management committee members are considering resigning and that teachers face an increasing administration burden? Will the Minister, therefore, urgently reappraise the financing of primary school education in Northern Ireland? Will he redirect some of the existing funding within his Department and the education area boards to our primary schools?

Mr. Ancram: While I do not for a moment deny that schools in Northern Ireland suffer the same difficulties as schools elsewhere, I think that the right hon. Gentleman paints a very black picture. I remind him that, in the past four years, the capital per capita allocations to primary schools in Northern Ireland have risen by 14 per cent. That is demonstrated by an improving parent-teacher ratio in the primary sector from 23.2:1 in the late 1980s to 21.6:1 in 1993–94. The provisional figures for 1994–95 show a further improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio to 20.8:1. That proves that conditions in Northern Ireland primary schools are improving.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30952]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not increasingly clear that the Government's firm and resolute management of the British economy has created the best performing economy in Europe? Would it not be a crying tragedy if that were thrown away by tying up British industry in red tape and by transferring our monetary policy—and, indeed, our


gold reserves—to Frankfurt, which is what would follow a Labour Government's subscription to the social chapter and a single currency?

The Prime Minister: The economy is doing very well. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis of the impact of the Labour party's alternative policies. In the past few days, we have had two separate illustrations of how well the economy is doing: first, the excellent news about jobs; secondly, the excellent news about inflation. We are now in the fifth year of steady growth, and that is what will deliver continuing prosperity.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Is it true that two of his Back Benchers gave the Government an ultimatum on Monday that, unless they received firm assurances that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital would be replaced by a full emergency unit, they would withdraw support from the Government; secondly, that the ultimatum was to expire last night; thirdly, that they then met the Health Secretary; and, fourthly, that they now say that they have been given those assurances and have withdrawn the ultimatum? Is that substantially true? If it is, is it not a disreputable way in which to run a Government?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not substantially true, and I have to say that there is no possibility of the Government responding to approaches of that sort from any hon. Member. We do not respond to such activities and we will not respond to such activities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured.

Mr. Blair: No, Madam Speaker, I am not reassured. Which of the facts that I have just listed does the right hon. Gentleman dispute? We know that the ultimatum was given. That is a matter of record. We know that the ultimatum was withdrawn, and the two Conservative Members concerned say that they have been given the assurance that the full emergency unit will now be given. What are we to make of this? Was it one of life's happy coincidences?
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, specifically, were those Conservative Members given the assurance that they say they were given by the Secretary of State for Health—that the accident and emergency department would be replaced with full emergency cover, details to be announced later? Were they given that assurance by the Secretary of State for Health or not?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting and misunderstanding, and I shall try to explain it to him. A lot of people have made representations about Edgware—local medical people, local churches, my hon. Friends and many others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened carefully, but he has made it clear that we will not retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital. We will not retain it, and

it is the gravamen of the charge that that is what he was asked to do. The policy that we are following is the policy that we have been pursuing for some time.

Mr. Mackinlay: Closing hospitals.

The Prime Minister: Not closing hospitals; providing better facilities—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) must come to order.

The Prime Minister: —for hospitals in London and elsewhere; facilities utterly run down when the Government took power in 1979.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has not answered the question about whether such an assurance has been given. [Interruption.] He has not answered it. When he gets to his feet again, let him say, yes or no, whether such an assurance was given. [Interruption.] Have Conservative Members any idea of the anger that people feel at the way in which decisions are taken when such closures are happening all round the country? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), along with other hon. Members, must come to order. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) must also come to order.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What about the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have just called the hon. Member for Thurrock to order.

Mr. Blair: I think that most people know that the way to save the health service is not to have Back-Bench Tory Members of Parliament pressuring a weak Government, but the election of a Government committed to the NHS.
I repeat: will the Prime Minister answer that question? Is he aware of the contempt that people feel for a Government whose policies now seem to be determined solely by the imprint of the last person who sat on him? Will not they conclude that this is a Government with no thought for the national interest and no purpose but survival?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's cheap insults do not provide arguments or enlightenment. I answered the question earlier. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he did not get the answer that he wanted.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced as long ago as last December that he was discussing the nature of the casualty service. He has not given an assurance to retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware and the right hon. Gentleman knows that.
The Government's spending on the national health service is at a record level—£116 million every day, £5 million every hour, £81,000 every minute. That is a commitment of which to be proud, and it will be retained by this Government in this Parliament—and in the next.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30953]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: In view of the disturbing and increasing number of child abuse cases, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all within his power to get to the root of the problem, thereby to prevent such tragedies from happening in future?

The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance. I am personally horrified by some of the events that have been reported. Children in residential care are self-evidently among the most vulnerable members of our society. We discussed the matter this morning at some length. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health have been considering what action to take, and we agreed their proposals this morning in Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is finalising arrangements for an inquiry to address what happened in north Wales, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is to invite Sir William Utting to assess whether the safeguards now in place, which have been much tightened in recent years, are adequate to protect children and are being properly enforced. My right hon. Friends will set out their detailed proposals, the terms of reference, the name of the judge and other matters in a full statement to the House early next week. I feel that the House would wish to know the direction in which the Government propose to take this matter.

Mr. Ashdown: That answer, at least, will be very welcome.
In what way is what the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) tried to do any different from what the Euro-rebels have been allowed to do—get the Prime Minister in an armlock and get their way? Surely they should not be criticised for trying that, but the Prime Minister should be for encouraging it. Is not it perfectly clear that we have a Government whose party has been suborned by a foreign millionaire, whose decisions are daily subjected to blackmail by any passing Back Bencher, whose Prime Minister is now cooking up a fudge to cover a surrender for a European policy that has failed, and that it is an Administration that has no further purpose except to ensure, by whatever means and at whatever cost, their own limping and miserable survival?

The Prime Minister: It would be a lengthy business to refute all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman just uttered. I shall use just one illustration. If the Referendum Bill was designed solely as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why did one of his hon. Friends vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two!"] Two. That is a dangerous split in a party of that size.
The tactic, by anyone, of threatening to withhold support generally in response to a specific demand will not work. It is not acceptable. It has not worked, and it will not work now or at any stage in future. No Minister would respond to such an approach.

Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to support what he said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? Will he confirm that the agreement that the Secretary of State for Health made between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was not the retention of an accident and emergency department in its fullest extent, but an alternative that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us for the past six months with regard to a casualty unit, which instead of having nurses would have qualified doctors 24 hours a day, and that when patients were in a stable condition they might have to be moved?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Hon. Members: More.

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said is that the matter has been discussed with him—and, I have to say, with a large number of other groups. It has been under consideration for many months, as my right hon. Friend has made clear on a number of occasions. The demands that it is said were made were not met by the Government and would not be met by them, either in this instance or in any instance in the future. I hope that that is entirely clear to the leader of the Labour party and everyone else.

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30954]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister recall that, on Tuesday, he saw no problem with the financing of the anti-European campaign of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) by Sir James Goldsmith, but yesterday—Wednesday—he and the Chief Whip ordered the hon. Member for Stafford to confess the error of his ways and stop taking the money? What caused the Prime Minister to change his mind?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should see exactly what was said. It was clearly unacceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to accept funds from the principal figure behind a list of candidates likely to stand against the Conservative party in the general election. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not receive any funding from that source, and I congratulate him on his decision.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last month, the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body met in the village of Adair in County Limerick, and that I was accompanied throughout the visit by a Garda officer,


Gerry McCabe? Is he aware that, last week, in that same beautiful village, that outstanding officer was gunned down by an IRA gang? Will he join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the widow and family of Gerry McCabe, and to Commissioner Culligan and all his colleagues in the Garda Siochana?
Does this not underline the fact that violence is an evil that threatens everyone throughout the island of Ireland and throughout these islands? Should not we reaffirm our support for all who are now bravely seeking to resolve difficult issues by democratic and peaceful means?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will wish to echo my right hon. Friend's words about Mr. McCabe and his brutal murder. That murder, and the murder of another Garda officer—which, I understand, Sinn Fein has yet again refused to condemn—only demonstrates even more clearly precisely why Sinn Fein cannot join in the talks that are currently taking place until such time as there is a clear-cut and unequivocal ceasefire, and we can be confident that it is going to be maintained. That is the British Government's position and the Irish Government's position, and it will not change.

Competitiveness White Paper

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's third competitiveness White Paper.
The Government's objective is simply put. It is to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe, which will lead to improved living standards and a better quality of life for all. The White Paper reports on progress towards that objective, and on further actions in hand and in prospect.
As the 1996 survey of the United Kingdom by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently reaffirmed, progress has been highly impressive. Over the last economic cycle, gross domestic product in the UK grew faster than in any other G7 country except Japan. The International Monetary Fund expects the United Kingdom to grow faster than the G7 average in both 1996 and 1997.
Since 1979, UK business investment has risen by over a third and has accounted for a higher proportion of GDP than in France, Germany, Italy and the United States.
As we heard this morning, inflation has now been below 4 per cent. for 44 consecutive months—the best performance for almost 50 years. That has allowed the Chancellor to cut interest rates four times since December, without jeopardising the Government's inflation target.
As we heard again yesterday, unemployment continues to fall. It is more than 800,000 lower than in December 1992. The unemployment rate is lower than in all other major European Union countries. We have combined that continuing fall in unemployment with a significant closing of the productivity gap, the best industrial relations performance for a century and one of Europe's highest levels of employment, while our refusal to embrace the social chapter means that our indirect wage costs remain competitive—indeed, the lowest among the G7 countries.
Exports, too, are growing strongly. They are up by 9 per cent. by volume in 1995.
The most visible demonstration of our success in making the British economy the most enterprising in Europe is that we have the highest level of inward investment as a proportion of GDP of any developed country. We attract more than a third of all inward investment into Europe, and that is the biggest vote of confidence that we could have. Those huge investment decisions are freely taken by world-class companies from the United States, Japan and Korea—but also from countries within the European Union, led by Germany and France. Siemens, Samsung, QVC, Ford and many others have invested billions of pounds over the past 12 months alone.
White Papers are a focus for our determination to improve performance year by year, in all the key areas that contribute to our competitiveness. They provide objective analysis and, where necessary, set out the action needed to bring this country's performance up to the standards of the best.
I draw the House's attention particularly to three matters. Last year, the Government promised to audit skill levels in the United Kingdom against international standards and to publish the results. The full skills audit report is published today and covers France, Germany,

Singapore, the United States and the UK. It shows that the UK is strong in the areas of higher education, lifetime learning and young people's information technology skills.

Mr. Stuart Bell: In relation to whom?

The Deputy Prime Minister: In relation to all the countries compared, self-evidently.
The audit report shows that more of our work force have higher-level qualifications than any of the audit comparator countries except the United States. It also shows that we are doing better than in the past, but that we need to continue to improve our performance, particularly in basic literacy, numeracy and key skills.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced far-reaching proposals to reform teacher training and to promote self-improvement in schools. She announced that the Government would publish a White Paper on schools, focusing on extending self-government, choice and diversity, and that we would legislate in the autumn to bolster schools' authority to deal with discipline problems.
The competitiveness White Paper sets out the action being taken to continue the transformation of this country's education and training system, building on the extensive programme of improvements on which the Government embarked in the mid-1980s.
The Government are also committed to build on our regional diversity. Over the next few weeks, each Government office in the English regions outside London will publish a document, on behalf of local partners, describing the contribution that their region makes to the UK's competitiveness and setting out actions to improve that contribution.
Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is today publishing a competitiveness report on Wales.
The Government have concentrated particularly on the creation and growth of small businesses. Today there are over 1 million more businesses in Britain than there were in 1979. Those firms are at the heart of our national competitiveness. We have created the most comprehensive support system we have ever had for such companies.
Ninety-three per cent. of small and medium-sized firms in England are within easy reach of a local business link outlet. There are now nearly 230 such outlets. Nearly 700 specialist advisers are in place and 90 per cent. of the personal business advisers have managed a small business. At the last count, more than 617,000 businesses were registered on business link databases and around 6,000 businesses a week have been using business link. The Government will continue to give the highest priority to developing the business link network, so that it can realise its massive potential for helping our smaller firms.
Over the past year, the Government have undertaken a series of formal consultations with the people running smaller businesses in this country. We have listened carefully to what they have told us. The deregulation initiative has swept away a whole raft of outdated, unnecessary and over-burdensome rules. We are reviewing the working of the system of uniform business


rates and the rates burden on small firms. We are also looking at the possibility of raising the threshold of the statutory audit requirement, and we shall consult on industrial tribunal claims and procedures. Tax administration is being simplified. We have consulted particularly assiduously on the proposal for a statutory right to interest on late payments.
Eight of the nine small firms' organisations support the Government's view that legislation in that area would not be appropriate. We intend, however, shortly to publish a consultation document on whether public limited companies and large subsidiaries should be required to publish their payment performance, and tough new targets for Government Departments have been published today.
A further strong message was that the Government's support for business was over-complicated, with too many schemes with confusing objectives run by too many Departments. We are therefore launching a major consultative exercise todayon how best to target and simplify our support in order to meet business needs, building on the success of training and enterprise councils and business links.
We propose that Government support for small and medium-sized enterprises will be brought together into a £200 million local competitiveness budget, up to 25 per cent. of which will be made available on a challenge basis. We propose also that sectoral support across Government be combined as a new sector challenge budget, building up to £40 million a year. Trade associations and other sector bodies will be asked to design programmes to improve the competitiveness of their industry.
This White Paper bears testimony to the vigour of our economy and provides a clear basis for further improvement of the skills infrastructure, managerial ability and entrepreneurial drive that are enabling this country to win. It sets out clearly why and how this country, incontestably, is becoming the enterprise centre of Europe. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: I welcome the latest White Paper on competitiveness—the third in a row—especially if it does anything to improve the prosperity of our country and its people. It is certainly bigger than before and fatter than before; it has more pictures than before and there is more than a whiff of the forthcoming general election about it. Of course, hon. Members will require some time to digest the detail. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the House will have an opportunity to debate it, as I assume it will?
This is the third such White Paper. The title of the first in 1994 was "Helping Business to Win". The second was called "Forging Ahead". They are positive titles, but what have they achieved?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The best economy in Europe.

Mr. Prescott: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the White Papers, but we cannot rely entirely on what they say.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that it is hard to judge what has been achieved, when it is so difficult to trust the Government's own statistics? We are told

that unemployment is falling—something that the House would welcome—but can he confirm that the official unemployment figures measure not the full extent of unemployment, but only the number of people seeking work and receiving benefit? Will he confirm that recorded unemployment has risen by more than 1 million since 1979 on the present fiddled figures, our work force having fallen by more than 1 million since 1990?
Is it not true that the Government have tried to condition us by accepting some of those shortcomings? The Deputy Prime Minister told the Japanese chamber of commerce on Tuesday:
There is plenty of good news, but in some areas we are still behind".
That is quite an understatement. The House has a better idea of what he means.
Has not the Deputy Prime Minister published his third White Paper in the 18th year of a Tory Government, during which the United Kingdom has slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league? The House will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman relies a great deal on the OECD country survey of the United Kingdom, but what really matters are the comparisons with our major competitors. International comparisons show that we are down in education, competitiveness, skills and qualifications.
Every time the Deputy Prime Minister publishes a White Paper, the United Kingdom seems to slip further down the international league tables. Is he aware that we fell from 15th to 19th in the International Institute for Management world competitiveness league? Even the World Economic Forum's global league table—which is more favourable to the Government and which they quote—puts us in 15th place. In respect of gross domestic investment, we are 48th out of 49 countries. For the supply of skilled labour, we are 34th out of 48 and in education standards, we come 35th.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman hopes—and it is the aim of his policy—that Britain will become the enterprise centre of Europe, but on that analysis, we are light years away from ever achieving it.
We welcome the skills audit—an idea that I proposed several years ago. Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister has been reading my documentation. We also welcome his intention to utilise the private finance initiative, as I advocated in the House well before the Government, although they still have not managed to implement it properly. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but why do they keep making a mess of good Labour ideas?
The skills audit report published today confirms that the United Kingdom has fewer entrants and a smaller proportion of the total population qualified to level 2 and above than France and Germany. The figures for new entrants are 58 per cent. for the United Kingdom, 65 per cent. for France and 70 per cent. for Germany. Those are international comparisons—the figures that really matter.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that a recent internal Treasury paper admitted that things were going from bad to worse and forecast that, on present trends, within five years we shall be out of the premier league altogether and vying with Thailand for our place? There are lies, damned lies and Heseltine statistics.
The thrust of the White Paper relates to the skills audit, and we welcome that. It also demonstrates the Government's conversion to the idea that regions can play a major part in developing economic prosperity—another idea that Labour set out in considerable detail.
Although the Deputy Prime Minister promises small businesses a great deal, more than 200,000 were made bankrupt last year. Does he accept that many small businesses will be listening once again to his recommendations of more deregulation, help with tribunals, a review of value added tax and so on—which he has promised year after year after year? What he has said today is not a conclusion, as there is to be a further review. Small businesses play an important part in the development of the British economy. They will get no comfort from what he has said today, which will riot help them to contribute to making the United Kingdom the enterprise centre of Europe—the target of the White Paper.
The White Paper is the work of a Government trying to make a virtue out of managing decline and manipulating propaganda. We need investment in manufacturing, skills and education and proper support for industry. This is the third and last White Paper from the present Government. What the country really needs is not the last in a series of White Papers, but a change of Government.

The Deputy Prime Minister: May I say how much I appreciate the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the White Paper? He was fulsome in his welcome. It is an interesting contrast with what his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said three years ago when we introduced the concept. He dismissed the whole thing as a coffee-table document.
It is, of course, no small measure of the degree of cultural conversion achieved by the competitiveness agenda that there has been an internecine war in the shadow Cabinet for the privilege to respond to this White Paper. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the shadow Chancellor and the deputy leader of the Labour party have all been hoping to have the chance to take this issue on as theirs. At least I have achieved something: I have got the members of the shadow Cabinet talking to each other—even if it is at the top of their voices in a bar-room brawl.
I should like to help the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I was intrigued by some of the statistics that he quoted. He was talking, for example, about the skills audit, which is arguably one of the most important things that we have done. We have said to ourselves as the Government that we shall analyse on a peer-group basis British education, which everyone knows has been a source of concern since the end of the 19th century, with a determination to drive up our standards to the best. That is what we have set out to do.
Every change that we have introduced in the education system since 1986 to drive up standards has been resisted by the Labour party—every single one. If Labour Members have the first idea how to drive up standards in our schools, and as they now control most of those schools, why do they not do it? Before anyone talks about undermining

confidence, they should consider that the person who has done more to undermine confidence in the local education system is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who moved his child out of Islington because he thought that standards were quite inadequate. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) moved her child from Southwark to Bromley because she knew that, under the Labour party, schools would never be properly run—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it is the season of the mad cow, but could the Deputy Prime Minister please explain what children's schooling has to do with efficiency, bureaucracy and time-saving? I thought that we were here to debate serious matters, not to have a knockabout, silly-billy session.

Madam Speaker: Although I doubt that that is a point of order, I think that we should keep our discussion within the context of the White Paper. I have already made a statement this month about how Ministers might handle questions and deal with such matters.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The deputy Leader of the Opposition referred extensively to the White Paper on the skills audit, which is published today. I am making a statement about that White Paper's central, new initiative. The idea that the competitiveness of our education and training is not the most vital ingredient after the macro-economic condition displays a degree of naivety that would terrify any observer of the scene.
I shall deal with what I regard as the most deplorable part of the Labour party's tactics in response to the White Paper. It has today put out a statement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that we have slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league table while the Government have been in office. It has done that with the backing of the OECD and the Library of the House of Commons. In order to make the position worse, Labour has included Hong Kong and Singapore in the statistics, which of course are not members of the OECD. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did last year."] They are not members. In order to make the position look as bad as possible, Opposition Members choose an arbitrary position so as to put those two countries into the chart, in which, as they are not members of OECD, they are not entitled to appear. The Opposition have decided to fiddle the figures.
Indeed, the Opposition have done worse than that. I have a certain sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, because his difficulty is that the latest figures from the OECD do not include 1979. The document that I have here contains the latest figures. So the Opposition have had to rely on another document. The difficulty for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is that that other document was revised by the OECD.
Far from being 13th in 1979, we were 15th, so according to the OECD's analysis, our relative position has moved from 15th to 16th.

Mr. Prescott: Forging ahead.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me help the right hon. Gentleman, who patently has not read the OECD report.


Why was the economy deteriorating in the 1979 period? What do we read in the OECD report about that time? First, we read that
by the end of 1978 British external competitiveness was at its worst level since 1966".
That was another Labour record, the record that we inherited, and we have had to address the issues. The difference today is that whereas we inherited a persistent decline in Britain's rating, we are now seeing an improvement in that rating. We went down from 15th to 19th and now we have recovered to 16th. That is the fundamental difference. Under the structural changes that we have brought about, this country is now improving its relative performance.
The OECD report dated 1996 says:
UK economic performance remained good in 1995 following the previous year's strong results.
In the longer term, the economic outlook is good".

Mr. Prescott: A Treasury forecast.

The Deputy Prime Minister: That is the OECD paper, referring to the prospects for the British economy. It continues:
International cost competitiveness remains sound.
After the structural changes of the past 17 years, we have now reached the position in which all independent analysis outside this country agrees that we are attracting 40 per cent. of all the inward investment coming into the European Union.
That is not the judgment of the Labour party or of the trade unions, but the judgment of the men and women who have to invest their money in the best economic circumstances to earn profits and to make a return. According to their judgment, we are the best country to choose. That is why we believe that we are the enterprise centre of Europe.

Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend write to all the poor-performing education authorities in the country drawing attention to the problems of numeracy and literacy? Will he ask them to introduce more whole-class teaching, better methods of teaching reading and writing, and more learning of tables and other traditional methods that work elsewhere, yet are being denied to the children in those authorities' schools? As new Labour is finding it so difficult to get its message across to its own supporters, perhaps my right hon. Friend will invite the Leader of the Opposition to co-sign the letter.

The Deputy Prime Minister: We know what the Leader of the Opposition would do: he would opt out of the process. That is exactly what he does. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend, and if the Labour party knew what to do, it could do it now. The Labour party controls most of the schools in this country. But the fact of the matter is that Labour has neither the will nor the ideas to take on the unions in those educational establishments and to take the necessary action to drive up standards. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is so much to be admired. With her predecessors, she has reversed the decline in our education standards to a point at which we can look forward to closing those gaps.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The Deputy Prime Minister presented an upbeat picture this afternoon, but

what would he say to the 250,000 people who lost their jobs in the first quarter of this year, the highest number since the winter of 1992–93? Will they enjoy the better quality of life for all that he has talked about? Was he not nearer the mark when trailing the White Paper in yesterday's Financial Times? He said:
We must now further raise the quality of our education system, training, innovation and a host of other factors if the UK's performance is to match the rest of the world.
After 17 years of Tory government and a raft of education measures, is not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledging that the triumph that he has proclaimed this afternoon is a long way from reality?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I would say that unemployment has fallen by 800,000 in the past three and a half years and that we have the highest proportion of our population at work. If one wants to prejudice that, the surest way to do so is to impose social costs or to raise income taxes, which both Opposition parties stand for.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the extraordinary increase in the number of prosperous small businesses in this country. Will he spare a thought for very small village pubs, which are an essential part of the framework of our society? Will he consider including among the imaginative ideas that the Government have canvassed, for rate relief for post offices, a similar measure for small village pubs?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that we take extremely seriously the representations that have been made to us, and we are considering them. We have taken steps regarding small businesses in rural areas, and they will be considered carefully.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his statement is an insult to the people out there in Britain, including the 4 million who do not have a job? That is the total—never mind his fiddled figures. The public sector borrowing requirement has increased by £10 billion, by the Government's own calculations, in the past 12 months. The Government are privatising British Rail and handing over £850 million a year to subsidise it, and they are stuffing nuclear power with another £1 billion a year. He talks about competitiveness, but he closed the last 31 pits, all of them in north Derbyshire. A survey in my constituency found that unemployment stands at more than 60 per cent. in three of those pit villages. That is the reality of 17 years of Tory government, and it is high time somebody else blackmailed them. We could then get rid of them and make a fresh start.

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is precisely because the hon. Gentleman and so many of his hon. Friends talked such nonsense in the post-war world that the coal industry was destroyed. They sold the miners down the river. If the miners had achieved the productivity under Labour that they are achieving today, there would he more profitable pits exporting coal, and everyone knows that.
Before the hon. Gentleman gives his customary diatribe, he might bear it in mind that he was content to support a Labour Government in 1979, when only a quarter stayed on at school—the figure is now up by 60 per cent.—and when only one in eight went into higher


education. The figure is now one in three. He talks loudly about helping people, but his views, philosophy and negative attitude are wholly destructive of their interests and of those of this country.

Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the figures that he announced this afternoon, showing that 1 million new firms have been created during the past 17 years? That is in no small measure due to the enormous number of changes that we have made in legislation, to encourage small and medium-sized firms. Will he continue that work? Will he also ensure that large public companies state how many days they take to pay their bills, so that people can look in their accounts and see what they are doing? Will he examine the statutory audit? I know that he mentioned that earlier, but it is important that the exemption limit is raised, because if it is not, we shall still be at a disadvantage compared with most of our main competitors.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has done so much to argue the cause of deregulation and lightening the load on small businesses. It is right that one of the most successful aspects of the rejuvenation of our economy is the fact that there are now more than 1 million more small businesses and that their number is rising as we lead Europe out of recession.
To start a small business, money must be retained in the hands of society at large. It is interesting to compare the tax situation in the OECD report of 1979 with that in the recent one. The 1979 report states:
Amendments to the Finance Bill in Parliament"—
led by the Opposition, who were then the Conservatives—
led to a reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 34 to 33 per cent.
That is an example of how then we were trying to force the Labour Government to reduce the basic rate of tax from 34p to 33p. Today, we are looking at a chance to move the basic rate from 24p to 20p. That is a fundamental ingredient of a situation in which small businesses are worth starting, and in which, when they start, they can keep enough money to expand.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has a justifiably high reputation as a successful business man. What would he say to a manager running one of his businesses who started with a struggling company placed 15th in the sales league and whose 17-year performance took it down to 19th and then back up to 16th, one place below where he started? Would he not have sacked that manager long ago and does not that fate—with justification, for having just such a record—await the Government?

The Deputy Prime Minister: But if the alternative managers had been responsible for creating the conditions that nearly destroyed this country's economy and if every time they had been elected, they had devalued the currency in a crisis, forced up taxes and inflation and put the unions in power, one would not spend 30 seconds making a choice about leaving the Government in power.

The hon. Gentleman should join us, because he knows as well as I do that there is only one party with any understanding of the challenges and opportunities of running a capitalist society. We are that party and the Opposition had better remain glued to their Benches.

Mr. John Butcher: Taking the company analogy further, does my right hon. Friend agree that a company that seeks to remain competitive in world terms has to be honest in the appraisal of its weaknesses and must always have its door open to new ideas, which is precisely what the White Paper does? I congratulate him on his approach in it. Does he agree that we can learn two things from Germany? It is folly to load on-costs on to the costs of employing people—to the extent that, in April, Germany laid off 180,000 workers. We can learn also from Germany's great advantage in what management trainers call the mastery of detail in their middle managers. The management of detail through their meister and techniker classes is something that we could perhaps mirror and improve on. I urge him to put his full weight behind the national vocational qualification programme and modern apprenticeships, because it is in that middle area that we have some catching up to do.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and I appreciate his view, which I think is the mature political view, that starting the process of catching up in areas where the comparisons are not satisfactory requires frank analysis. That is what we have done. We have great strengths, but there are some areas that need improvement.
The easiest way to destroy our competitiveness is to increase the on-costs of employing people. That is one of the issues that divides the two sides of the House starkly and absolutely. We will not accept the social chapter. The truth is that we shall be proved right, as we have been on so many other occasions, because the Europeans know that they are going to have to make adjustments to the structure of their social funding to lighten the load. They know perfectly well that German, French and Dutch firms are moving to Britain because of the relative costs. To undo the advantage, as the Labour party would do, would severely prejudice the British national self-interest.

Mr. Prescott: So why is all the capital flowing out?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Because we live in an open society. Here we have a fascinating example of the narrow-minded view of the Labour party. Labour Members cannot understand that if we invest overseas, earnings are repatriated to this country. The obsession of the Labour party is not with the British economy, but with the 20 per cent. of the economy that the manufacturing economy represents, where Labour's trade union paymasters are the strongest.
Let us take the most obvious example. We have a trade deficit with Japan, but we have a balance of payments surplus with it because repatriation of earnings through tourism and other invisible earnings more than make up for the trade deficit. The Labour party has to come to terms with the fact that this is a global world. The Labour party talks about protectionism and stopping the ex-flow of capital. Is the Labour party going to do that?

Mr. Richard Caborn: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now weary of comments from a sedentary position from the Opposition Front


Bench. [Interruption.] Order. A number of Members are impatient to put their questions and I am impatient to call them. At this rate, they will not all be called.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I simply make the observation that there is an in-built hostility to British investment overseas. Labour Members do not understand the nature of the global world in which we operate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will answer me three straight questions without a tirade. First, why is it that, with the reduction in safety measures that has resulted from the removal of red tape and bureaucracy, there are more accidents? Why is it that, with the removal of many safeguards, abattoirs have not been able to cope with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, simply because we no longer have the right regulations for rendering plants and abattoirs? Thirdly—here I declare a professional interest on behalf of many professional men—why are the Government the slowest payer of any body with which we deal?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, find it easy to make such allegations. If he can show me scientific advice to the Government in respect of BSE that the Government have not meticulously followed, I should like to see it. If he can show me safety measures that the Health and Safety Executive—a tripartite body representing the trade unions as well as the employers—has urged the Government to introduce and which we are not introducing, I should be interested to see them. The fact is that he cannot. All that he can do is indulge in the worst sort of scare tactics and unsubstantiated allegations, without any regard to the damage that they do to the national interest, presumably in order to make some cheap publicity and in the hope that the harm that it does is forgotten the day after. It is a deplorable abuse of the House that an hon. Member is prepared to make allegations of that sort about safety without backing them up.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that we had the greatest growth in the economic cycle of any country in Europe, but does he agree that the important fact is not only that, but that our growth has been greater than inflation for the first time in many decades, so we are making real strides in improving our economy?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. There are numerous examples of the strength of the British economy. It is today looking forward to one of the most exciting prolonged periods of expansion that any of us can remember.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Many of us came here to have a serious discussion on the White Paper that the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced. We have had three White Papers on competitiveness, because our economy is in a very serious situation. There is no doubt that some of the White Papers have tried to remedy the situation. But the fact is that we have the White Papers—they are a symptom of something deeply wrong with our economy and with the management of it for the past 17 years.
Does not the Deputy Prime Minister have to accept the fact that, if one wants to destroy an economy, one fails to invest and one fails to educate and train the population to a sufficiently high level? That is the accusation against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman reduced the tone of the debate this afternoon when he referred to the education of the children of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). [Interruption.] Yes, he did—and the tone of the debate dropped. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have never supported public education. We have failed to educate and to train the ordinary children of this country sufficiently well.

The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not of political significance when the Leader of the Opposition takes his child out of a Labour borough's education system and if he thinks that that is not a reflection of the quality of education in Labour authorities, I do not know what is. [Interruption.] Of course he is entitled to do so—and I suppose that it is his responsibility, as a member of the Opposition, to put forward the most gloomy view. I have to ask myself a different question. The OECD, in surveying the British economy, said:
UK economic performance remained good in 1995 following the previous year's strong results.
In the longer term, the economic outlook is good".
Do I believe the OECD or the Labour party? That is not a difficult question for me to answer.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will realise that competitiveness and enterprise are most particularly driven in detail at local level. He said a good deal about education now being stultified by local education authorities that are controlled by the Opposition parties. Does he agree that, at the local level, the Opposition parties that are in control of councils produce far too much bureaucracy and far too many petty officials, and constantly come forward with silly ideas for regional authorities, such as a reborn GLC?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I have another criticism: in too many Labour authorities, there is no real awareness of the need to drive up standards. They are preoccupied with spending money—they are on the side of the producer, not the consumer. The essence of the Government's competitive thrust is to be preoccupied with what the market will require and with what the customer expects on an international and national basis. That is the only way to succeed.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I accept what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the importance of business links. He indicated that 7 per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises are not in easy contact with a business link. East Lancashire still does not have a business link. Whose fault is that? Is it the Government's fault? Is it the East Lancashire training and enterprise council's fault? Will he give a kick, where necessary, to ensure that we have a business link as soon as possible?

The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a serious question, and I shall deal with it seriously. Quite frankly, the disputes locally have not been resolved, and I regret


that—it is of ill service to the local industrial and commercial communities. I believe that the arguments are not valid. They are born of rivalries—perhaps they are historic or personal. It is apparent that we have put a business link chain more or less throughout England, to the immense benefit of small businesses: 6,000 of them use it every week. It is regrettable that there is not a business link in east Lancashire because they have not been able to get their act together.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on reaffirming the vital importance of education and the basics to industrial competitiveness. Is it not a fact that the announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment yesterday, about the reform of teacher training colleges and a close examination of what happens in those colleges, is of vital importance to the policy that he has put forward this afternoon? Will he confirm that that will be a root-and-branch look at those colleges, to drive forward the policy that he has so ably put forward this afternoon?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has deep personal experience of the education world, and I appreciate that. The Prime Minister made it clear—I repeat it on his behalf—that nothing is more important than to drive up this country's education standards. It is of fundamental importance to our competitiveness agenda. That will happen only if we apply a range of policies throughout the education world. In 1986, the ground of opportunity was laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). From that moment on, in the teeth of resistance, we have introduced the necessary reforms. The benefits are now beginning to flow, but we have not yet closed all the gaps, particularly at the lower level of some skill requirements. We must do so and we shall put our whole endeavours into achieving it.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that yesterday's investment of £113 million by Emersons and Caterpillar in F. G. Wilson in Larne in my constituency, which will create nearly 2,000 jobs in Larne, Monkstown and west Belfast, is a vote of confidence in the UK economy and in the education and training provided in Northern Ireland? In today's statement, he referred to this country and to England and Wales. Will he assure me that the policies being pursued will be brought to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, so that all of us in the UK can benefit?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reaffirm that. The competitiveness agenda is, in the main, dealt with in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The other day, I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland. It was one of my most exciting visits, and that is sincerely meant. I saw some of the most exciting companies that I have come across. Recently, I took 270 companies on my visit to China. Some of the most forceful were from Northern Ireland. They enjoyed their visit as much as we enjoyed having them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The UK economy is prospering and the White Paper's measures

will further assist in advancing our economy's interests, but does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing is a vital sector of our economy? We need to encourage more investment, albeit that investment has increased recently, but from a fairly low level. Has he any plans to seek to improve the investment level? There is undoubtedly a problem in respect of capital spending reductions in higher education, and the private finance initiative has not yet taken off. Will he consider that matter, to find out whether he can, through his Department, assist in ensuring that capital expenditure reductions in higher education do not prejudice the tremendous success of higher education, which is vital to our economy?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the tremendous success and tremendous expansion of higher education. We consider carefully—we shall do so again in the forthcoming public expenditure round—the requirements of the higher education sector, indeed, the whole education sector. The extent to which the private finance initiative is beginning to become adopted in that sector, which has great benefits, and the degree of partnership that is being established between academia and the British industrial and commercial base, are encouraging. Manufacturing industry is, of course, a critical part of our economy. One cannot preserve sectors simply because they are historically excellent, but investment is flowing into some of the more advanced technologies in manufacturing today, which is extremely exciting.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has in place about as effective a means of support and sponsorship of the sectors for which he is responsible as there has ever been. One of the things that we have introduced in this year's competitiveness White Paper is a list of sponsorship responsibilities for each sector of industry, Department by Department, to focus attention clearly on where companies can turn for the support that the Government now give. We do not subsidise them or have cosy relationships with them, but we work together to try to increase their opportunities.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Deputy Prime Minister address himself to section 6 of the White Paper, relating to competition in transport? Why does it mention all modes of transport except aviation and airports? There is a clear lack of competition in that field, as the British Airports Authority has a monopoly vested in the three principal London airports and British Airways recently announced its intention to join American Airlines—a move that is being challenged by a number of people in the market who believe that it represents unfair competition. Therefore, is there not a case for making a statement or producing a supplement to the White Paper, in order to address—via legislation in this place and references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—the question of the monopoly in London's airports and the threat to competition posed by British Airways' tie-up with American Airlines?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Nobody would support the hon. Gentleman more than me, in paying tribute to the remarkable achievements of the civil aerospace and aviation industry in this country. It has been a great triumph since it was privatised. [Interruption.] There is


no comparison between the scale of the British aviation industry or the British Airports Authority, their national and international roles and effectiveness as major players now, and their positions before privatisation. I know that, because I was the Minister who sponsored them in the mid-1970s.
The hon. Gentleman raised some competition policy issues. There are several controversial matters on the tapis at the moment, so he will understand if I am not drawn into discussing them. He knows that there are regulatory authorities, and it is not for me to double-guess them.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the Davos World Economic Forum global competitiveness league, to which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred rather selectively. Does it not show that Britain has been promoted from 18th to 15th place, while Germany and France have been relegated to 22nd and 23rd places? That means that Britain is No. 3 in Europe, and demonstrates that we are becoming the enterprise centre of Europe.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We look very carefully at the World Economic Forum reports. Their analysis is often conducted on the basis of surveys of industrialists—which is a very interesting means of analysis. We think that the forum tends to be rather more selective in its sampling and more subjective in its judgments than the analysis that we have tried to introduce into our White Paper. If I had sought to put a gloss upon the improvement in Britain's competitiveness, I could have easily switched the basis of calculation and chosen the most favourable existing surveys—I assure the House that there are more favourable surveys than the ones that we have produced. As to the integrity of the competitiveness agenda, the vital factor is that we do not change the basis of comparisons year by year.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Family Law Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the fight against fraud in the benefit system. Followed by a debate on the privatisation of the nuclear industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on sentencing policy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Debate on the strategy against drugs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Defamation Bill [Lords]. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE—In the morning, until 12.30 pm, there will be a debate on the second report from the Employment Committee on the right to work/workfare followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Treasury Committee on the private finance initiative. Those debates on Select Committee reports will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, the 17th Opposition Day, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which is to be announced.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the structural and boundary change orders; that is, local government reorganisation. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 June, there will be a debate on the administration and control of CAP compensatory aid in European Standing Committee A, and that on Wednesday 26 June there will be a debate on small and medium enterprises in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 19 June:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7181/96 relating to CAP compensatory aid: administration and control. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-xxii (1995–96) and HC 51-xx (1995–96).

Wednesday 26 June:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 6141/96 relating to small and medium sized enterprises; (b) 6929/96 relating to loans to small and medium sized enterprises. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-xix (1995–96) and (b) HC 51-xxii (1995–96).

Thursday 20 June:

Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The following documents are relevant:

The White Paper on Developments in the European Union July to December 1995 (Cm 3250); First Annual Report on Progress in Implementing the Action Plan for the Introduction of Advanced Television Services in Europe 8567/95; The Commission's Recommendation for the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community (11/207/96-EN REV 1); The Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 12 June (House of Commons Paper No. 306 ii).

Thursday 27 June:

Motions on the structural and boundary change orders. The relevant orders are as follows:

The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Shropshire (District of the Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996.]

Finally, I am glad to say that I am now in a position—the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will say "at last"—to answer a question that the hon. Lady has asked me on a number of occasions by telling her that the summer economic debate, as it is known—the debate on the economy—will take place on Wednesday 17 July.

I am also in a position to tell the hon. Lady something that I do not think that she has yet asked about, but no doubt soon would, which is the date of the Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget statement on Tuesday 26 November.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. As he has said, on several occasions recently I have asked him about various matters, including the date of the summer economic debate, and I am grateful that he has been able to give us some notice of when that debate will take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the summer economic forecast will be available on 9 July, which I understand is the provisional date for publication?
The right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic recently to a request that I made for a debate on the situation in Hong Kong. He said from the Dispatch Box that he saw good reason for having another debate in the near future and I wonder if he can now tell us whether it is likely that that debate will take place before the summer recess.
The right hon. Gentleman has also expressed sympathy throughout the parliamentary year to my request for a debate on further reform of parliamentary procedures. In view of his general sympathy to discussing such matters, is there any realistic chance of such a debate before the summer recess?
The right hon. Gentleman has not announced a date for the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. He will be aware that my hon. Friends from Wales have made repeated requests for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that they can have a full-scale debate on the BSE crisis and its impact in Wales. Does he accept that the need for such a debate in that setting is now extremely urgent and will he take steps to try to ensure that that can happen as soon as possible?
On an entirely different issue, the right hon. Gentleman may have read about the distressing experience of passengers booked on a flight from Orlando to Manchester at the weekend. As the passengers on that flight, including a family from my constituency, had genuine reason to be concerned, and as they believe that their consumer rights were inadequate and that they were given less than helpful advice by the British consulate in Orlando, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is ministerial co-operation to investigate the incident and that, following such an investigation, Ministers report to the House on any changes that might be necessary to deal with such a situation in the future?
Finally, one date that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention but about which there has been a great deal of speculation, is the date of the summer recess. Can the Leader of the House throw any light on that particular matter, even if it is only to remind the House of the dates of the royal garden parties so that we can make some informed judgment as to how far into July the House is likely to be sitting?

Mr. Newton: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for her words of thanks about the date of the summer economic debate, and in return respond by saying that it is my understanding that the summer economic forecast is expected to be published on Tuesday 9 July? One reason for having the debate on 17 July is to allow a little time for study after its publication but also to allow time for the Treasury Select Committee to take evidence from Treasury officials and, indeed, the Chancellor before the debate takes place. I hope that what I have announced will be for the general convenience of everybody concerned.
I remain sympathetic to the hon. Lady's request for debates on Hong Kong and procedure, but I am not in a position to translate sympathy into an announcement at the moment. There is quite a lot of pressure of business between now and the summer recess, but I shall do my best.
On the hon. Lady's question about the Welsh Grand Committee and the debate that her hon. Friends wish to have on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, I am aware


that there has been discussion and correspondence between my right hon. Friend and her hon. Friend about the overall organisation of this particular meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. It is more appropriate for me to leave the discussion to continue between the usual channels than to intervene on the Floor of the House, but I take note of her remarks.
I admire the ingenious way in which the hon. Lady managed to weave a constituency case into business questions, for perfectly good and understandable reasons that I respect. She will understand that I am not in a position to comment in detail, but I shall certainly ensure that her remarks and request are brought to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
Lastly—to be honest I cannot remember the dates of all the royal garden parties—the hon. Lady asked about the date of the summer recess, in which I suspect that there is widespread interest. I have already announced some business for 17 July, and it is only fair that I should tell the House that, although I am not yet in a position to give dates for the recess, I anticipate that the House is likely to sit well into the second half of July.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the time that he has allotted for the Defamation Bill? Does he accept that the clause on the bill of rights—if I may put it that way—is probably the most important parliamentary matter that we will have had to discuss this Parliament and arguably for many years? Does he seriously think that a debate that terminates at 7 o'clock with opposed private business is enough? I know that the debate can resume later, but would it not be better to have an uninterrupted day on that particular subject?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's thoughts. He will have heard it said from a sedentary position—albeit not by me—that it is possible for debate to be interrupted rather than terminated by private business, and there are many examples of such a resumption. Indeed, if I remember rightly, I think that it happened when we last debated the Defamation Bill. I note my hon. Friend's points. Much of the Bill appears to be pretty non-controversial, so there should be quite a significant opportunity for debate on the point about which he is concerned.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I support the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need for a debate on procedural reform? The official Opposition have come up with some fairly new and interesting ideas, and the Liberal Democrats are in the process of doing the same.
May I say in passing that it is useful that the House has been given details of two weeks' business, because it allows me an opportunity to say that I am slightly concerned that up to nine orders will have to be considered in a three-hour debate on Thursday 27 June. Perhaps other parties were consulted through the usual channels about this, but I am nervous about the number of structural and boundary orders that will have to be considered during that debate.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's support for what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said

about a debate on procedures, but I cannot add to what I said to her. As for the business for Thursday 27 June, the hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that my proposal seemed to be for the general convenience of the House in the light of discussion between the usual channels; but, as in a sense he is also a "usual channel", I will take that as a representation, and will at least give it what consideration I can.

Mr. John Sykes: May we have a debate about the future of the Crown Prosecution Service at some stage? I ask because yesterday a 16-year-old thug appeared in Scarborough magistrates court charged with vicious assault on a 40-year-old gentleman. It was all caught on camera, but when the youth pleaded not guilty the CPS dropped the charges immediately, without consulting the police as it is bound to do. Is it not high time that we sent the CPS packing and handed responsibility for prosecutions back to the police, where it belongs?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on such a case off the cuff. As he will understand, I feel that the appropriate course is for me to bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for the CPS.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the closure of hospitals and accident and emergency departments? He will know that, along with my constituents, I have been fighting the closure of Northowram hospital. My constituents and I are dismayed that the Edgware accident and emergency department is apparently to be kept open in some form because of blackmailing by two local Members of Parliament.
While he is at it, could the right hon. Gentleman please give us the Government's definitions of an accident and emergency department and a casualty department?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said not so long ago when he made it clear that he did not accept the line of argument to which the hon. Lady has returned.
Clearly, the difference between a full-scale accident and emergency department and a casualty service of the kind that exists at one hospital in my constituency is largely one of scale. The degree to which all kinds of modern equipment are available is another factor.

Mr. Barry Field: When may we have a debate on the competitiveness White Paper that was announced today? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be surprised to learn that, when the Deputy Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade, he was instrumental in securing regional assistance and a business link for the Isle of Wight—as well as the regional office, which has been very helpful under Gillian Ashworth. Despite all that assistance, we have the lowest percentage of higher-rate taxpayers in the country, and we still have one of the highest levels of seasonal unemployment. We hear all the grizzling and grumps from Opposition Members, but their economies have been transformed with the Government's assistance. I hope that my right


hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to bring his entrepreneurial skills to bear on the island's economy, and crack the problems.

Mr. Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the importance of the policies that the Government have been pursuing, whose further development was set out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon. My hon. Friend will realise that his request for a debate is the third that I have received so far this afternoon, against a background of some anxiety about the date of the summer recess. He will appreciate that I may be trying to put a quart into a pint pot unless the House actually wishes to sit well into August.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has been very helpful when I have pressed for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Will he encourage the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene the Committee in the near future—before the recess—so that it can consider the report of the examiner's statutory rules for the past two or three years? I have been speaking to the parties from Northern Ireland that are represented here today, and they are sympathetic to that request.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has quite a lot on his mind, and indeed his plate, at present. Much of it will have been vented earlier in Northern Ireland questions. I will, however, remind him of the pressure that the hon. Gentleman is exerting.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on an earlier occasion, I raised in the House the practice of granting legal aid out of public funds to persons who are not ordinarily resident in this country. Can he find time for a debate on that important subject? As I am sure he will know, our constituents consider it entirely wrong that they should be denied legal aid on the ground that there is not enough money in the fund, although they have paid taxes all their lives, while there seems to be enough money to grant legal aid to foreign persons.

Mr. Newton: That is request for debate No. 4. In the event of future requests, I shall want a signed piece of paper offering me an undertaking that the hon. Member concerned will be here in August. Meanwhile, I can tell my hon. Friend—perhaps more helpfully, although my first remark was also intended in a friendly spirit—that the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a White Paper on the future of legal aid before the summer recess, although whether there will be time for it to be debated before the summer recess is a more questionable proposition.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Has the Leader of the House seen my early-day motion 972?
[That this house is concerned about the recent change of legal interpretation of regulations by Television Licensing, whereby it was previously accepted that, providing there was no simultaneous use, a television licence for the main home would also cover the use of a

television at a second home (including static caravans); observes that this change of interpretation now means that even where it is proven that there is no simultaneous use of a television a second licence will need to be purchased; recognises that many retired people have static caravans and could not afford two television licences; and urges the Government to change the Consolidated Television Licence Fee Regulations 1991 in order that Television Licensing can reinstate its original interpretation in particular for retired people.]
The motion concerns people who are forced to buy two television licences, although there is no simultaneous viewing. The situation has been caused not by any change of regulations by the Government, but by a change in legal interpretation. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement in the House about how she intends to redress the position? It is clearly unfair: people cannot be in two places at once, so why should they be charged twice for one service?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 981?
[That this House notes the statement of the honourable Member for Falkirk West, when referring to the Leader of the Opposition, that it ill becomes the product of an elitist school who has rejected the local education authority system for his own offspring to pontificate on teaching methods in comprehensives; admires his courage in defying the party spin-doctors; and finds his comments revealing in highlighting the real opinions of Labour backbenchers.]
My right hon. Friend will recall that the motion highlights a particularly vicious attack on the Leader of the Opposition by a senior Labour Back Bencher. Such a debate would allow that hon. Member, and a long string others who have indulged in similar practices, to defy the spin doctors and come to the House to articulate their views on the leader of their own party.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the scale and extent of divisions in the Labour party on education policy, which were no doubt also visible during the debate earlier this week. If I can find further opportunities to make them even more visible, I shall of course do my best.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that he can count on my support for the structural order relating to Essex. I ask him, however, to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). If so many orders are to be debated in only two or three hours, 80 or 90 hon. Members may legitimately wish to have their say. I feel that we need more parliamentary time to discuss such a long list of orders.
May we have a statement about lindane getting into the food chain? A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about that. One of your distinguished deputies, Madam Speaker, before being elevated, initiated a powerful Adjournment debate about it some time ago. We do not want to encounter the same


problems that we have encountered in relation to other aspects of the food chain. The matter requires urgent consideration and debate, and a statement from a Minister.

Mr. Newton: I will bring that last request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, it was not actually a request for another debate, but it was close to being one, which would make it No. 5. I take note of it—in addition to the points raised by one or two hon. Members—but some judgment really must be made about how long the House wants to go on sitting.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for a debate on adoption? The Government have published a draft Bill on the subject, and the end of the consultation period in relation to it is 28 June. It would be very helpful if we could have a debate, if not before that date, very shortly after it.

Mr. Newton: That is request No. 6. The list grows by the minute—but once again, in my usual spirit of friendly co-operation, I will add it to what I have come to call my little list.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you and Madam Speaker—who is the guardian of Back Benchers' rights in the House—are privy to the recess dates for the summer recess, if we are likely to be sitting into August, may I ask that you put in a kind word on behalf of the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight? The royal yacht will be visiting Cowes week in the first week of August—for the very last time, because it will be going off to Hong Kong—and I am sure that all my constituents will wish me to be there, as I have fought so valiantly to retain it. It will be a very historic occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Being a kind man, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 52

CODES OF PRACTICE: POLICE POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 34, line 17, at end insert—

("() The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with—

(a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act or by that Act; and
(b) the seizure and retention of property found by police officers when exercising powers of search conferred by any provision of this Act or that Act.

() The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of their powers under Part II of this Act.

() In this section "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.")

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Sir John Wheeler: Clauses 52 and 54 re-enact in part section 61 of the current Act. They place a duty on the Secretary of State to make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons who are detained under the terrorism provisions. However, the Bill was drafted against the backdrop of a prevailing ceasefire situation, and it omits that part of the existing provision that confers on the Secretary of State a discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the police and Army's powers of arrest, search and seizure known as "part II powers".
No such codes were made during the lifetime of the current Act, and the ceasefires had seen a significant downturn in the use of the part II powers. In those circumstances, it was decided that the provision could lapse.
The Bill has been overshadowed by the provisional IRA's decision to end its ceasefire. We have seen a return to violence in the form of the bombings in London, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the security forces' part II powers will be needed for some time to come.
It seems sensible, therefore, to re-enact the power to create as necessary that type of additional safeguard, which codes of practice would provide.

Mr. Tony Worthington: We welcome these amendments. Memory tells me that, during discussion of the Bill in Committee, we urged the Government not to drop this provision. It is regrettable


that the Government have felt it necessary to bring back the provision, because that is a reflection of the deteriorating position. There was a ceasefire when the Bill was introduced, and that ceasefire has ended.
It would be interesting to hear from the Government whether there is a firm intention to introduce such a code. We already had a power to introduce a code, but it was never used. I should be grateful if the Government will tell us whether they will prepare a code.
These matters are being considered by the Lloyd review. The Government recently assured us that the Lloyd review—which affects this amendment and every other provision in the Bill—would be delivered by October. As a matter of clarification, will the Lloyd review be published in October, or will it be delivered only to the Government, for private consideration, for some months before the Opposition and the public can see it? It would be useful to know whether we will be able to have public discussion of the review in October or whether it will be some months after that.

Sir John Wheeler: I shall reply very briefly to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and tell him this about the codes. No decision has yet been made to commence work on codes of practice in respect of the part II powers. As he will know, those powers have been used much less frequently than when terrorist activity was at its height.
If, however, the security situation deteriorates and the use of the powers increases significantly, the Government would give careful consideration to the drawing up of such codes of practice as an additional safeguard for the public and for members of the security forces.
As I have said elsewhere, the Lloyd review will be published in October and will be available for scrutiny by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and by all others with an interest in this matter.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 62

COMMENCEMENT, DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 39, line 27, after ("it") insert

(", or a corresponding earlier enactment,")

Sir John Wheeler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment seeks to address a gap in the Bill as drafted. Clause 15 restricts the remission granted under prison rules in respect of those convicted of scheduled offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more; in such cases, remission is restricted to one third of the sentence. Clause 16 requires the court to order that a person imprisoned for a scheduled offence during a

period of remission must serve the unexpired portion of the sentence for his previous offence in addition to the sentence for the subsequent offence.
These two provisions are temporary. Clause 62 provides that in the event of the expiry—or cesser—of either provision, its operational effect shall continue in relation to an offence committed while the provision was in force. However, in the event of the expiry or cesser of clause 15 or 16, the intention would be that the expiry or cesser should affect only offences committed after that event. In other words, offences committed before the expiry or cesser of clause 15 or 16 should continue to be subject to those provisions. The clause does not quite achieve that result because it omits a reference to offences committed before the enactment of the provision—in other words, offences committed during the lifetime of a predecessor provision.
The current wording of clause 62 omits any reference to predecessor provisions. The amendment corrects that.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I should like to speak to the Lords amendments on clause 52 and clause 54. My original intention was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This Lords amendment deals with clause 62; we have already discussed Lords amendments to clause 52 and clause 54. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Lords amendments to clause 62.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 63

SAVINGS, AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 39, line 46, at end insert—

("() Schedule (Scheduled offences: transitional provisions) (which makes transitional provisions in relation to scheduled offences) shall have effect.")

Sir John Wheeler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.

Sir John Wheeler: Because the Bill has the effect of removing certain offences from the current list of scheduled offences—that is, offences that merit special treatment under the emergency legislation—it is necessary to spell out precisely how cases involving such offences, whether committed or alleged to have been committed at the time of the Bill's enactment, should continue to be dealt with after that date.
The amendments would add a new schedule to the Bill which would set out the transitional arrangements for each case, taking into account its individual stage in the criminal justice process at the time of the Bill's enactment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments, authorises expenditure of £3,617 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in February, this brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £6,438 million, an increase of 6.2 per cent. on 1995–96 provisional outturn. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office covering law and order services are not covered by the order before us.
As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £164 million. In vote 1, net provision of some £20 million is to fund European Union and national agriculture and fishery support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom.
The net provision covers the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, which total £135 million. The vote includes some £6 million to assist structural improvements, by way of various capital, environmental and other grants. Some £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep, while £6 million is in respect of processing, marketing and fishing projects, which are wholly funded by the European Union.
In vote 2, some £140 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £27 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services; £24 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services; and £5 million is for the rural development programme. Some £18.4 million is for watercourse management, which is due to become a next steps agency with effect from 1 October 1996.
This vote also contains net provision of £9.3 million in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme which incorporates agricultural, rural and water-based projects.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, some £134 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable the board to continue to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland, mainly through the provision of factory buildings and selective financial assistance to both new and existing companies. In 1995–96, the board supported some 35 inward investment projects offering 4,869 jobs.
In vote 2, some £115 million is required. Thirty-two million pounds is for the local enterprise development unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will allow the agency to maintain its excellent record in

developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms sector in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the excellent news that 300 new jobs are coming to Cookstown in my constituency. I wish to put on record our appreciation for all the efforts made by the Industrial Development Board and for Baroness Denton's help in getting those jobs for Mid-Ulster.
Northern Ireland's major industry is agriculture. Does the Minister accept that, as we have heard this afternoon, Northern Ireland is practically bovine spongiform encephalopathy free? Will he encourage the Secretary of State, the Cabinet and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to get the European ban lifted and allow Northern Ireland to lead the United Kingdom out of the present awful situation, bearing in mind the quality of our produce, which is respected across the world?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks in which he thanked my noble Friend for her enthusiastic and sterling work on behalf of his constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland. She will be much sustained and encouraged by his observations. I know that the hon. Gentleman works unceasingly to support his constituents by sustaining the business environment and he is aware that he is appreciated for doing so.
As for the BSE problem, it is simply not acceptable that the UK should have been placed in the present position. It is the Government's policy that the ban should be lifted not only for Northern Ireland but for the UK as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's specific remarks about Northern Ireland's excellent record are, of course, well understood and will undoubtedly form part of the Government's case in Europe to see that the ban is lifted as soon as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
I was giving the House some financial information. A total of £15.5 million is for the industrial research and technology unit, primarily to promote the competitiveness of local companies by encouraging innovation, industrially relevant research and development and by technology transfer. This underlines the importance that the Government attach to helping Northern Ireland industry to grasp the technological opportunities that underpin successful economic development.
Finally in this vote, £14.6 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. This coming year will be an important challenge for tourism in Northern Ireland. In 1995 we saw the seventh consecutive rise in visitor numbers: a record number of almost 1.6 million people came to Northern Ireland, a 20 per cent. increase on 1994. Investment in tourism remains healthy with a number of major development projects announced in recent months.
In vote 3, £212 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This will enable the agency to continue to provide a range of comprehensive training and support measures, and includes £73 million to fund 16,000 training places under the jobskills training programme. Some £45.6 million is for the action for community employment and community work


programmes, which will provide some 8,000 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Furthermore, £23.7 million is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their work force and to provide training for those intending to pursue management careers in industry.
I deal now with the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £180 million is for roads, transport and ports. This includes some £147 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system.

Mr. Roy Beggs: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the share of funding allocated to DOE roads in Northern Ireland is totally inadequate for current needs? We were disappointed in East Antrim that both the A8 and A2 projects were removed from the major works scheme. We would like them to be reinstated. Yesterday's announcement of major investment by Emerson Electric and Caterpillar in F. G. Wilson will increase substantially the number of heavy goods vehicles travelling between the new plants in Newtownabbey and west Belfast to and from Larne. I would ask that consideration be given at the earliest possible date to increasing the amount of money both for new projects and for road maintenance throughout Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of the road to Larne and all adjacent roads and he argues his case with conviction. The roads programme is assessed on an annual basis and has to take into account circumstances, time, financial priorities and other objectives. However, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for roads will be replying to the debate and I have every confidence that he will wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and possibly to other comments about roads which may be made during the debate.
To continue, maintenance of the road system remains a priority with some £72 million being spent this year. The maintenance programme is complemented by new road construction, minor road improvement and safety schemes. This year, some £3.4 million has been made available for phase 2 of the cross-harbour bridge scheme, with completion of the M3 Lagan Bridge to the Sydenham bypass scheduled for October 1997.
Vote 2 covers housing, where some £210 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. That is an increase of some £4 million on 1995–96. When net borrowing and the housing executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be some £607 million. That is an increase of some £5 million over 1995–96 and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions enabling the housing executive to start some 900 new houses and housing associations to start some 1,250 new dwellings.
Vote 3 covers expenditure by the new Water Service Agency covering water and sewerage services where gross expenditure is estimated at £181 million. Some £75 million is for capital expenditure and some £106 million is for operational and maintenance purposes and administration costs.
In vote 4, about £200 million is for environmental and other services. That includes provision for the environment and heritage service, the planning service, the construction service and land registers of Northern Ireland, all of which achieved agency status in April 1996. Some £37 million is for urban regeneration measures that continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. Those measures provide the catalyst for higher overall investment through partnerships with the private sector. Some £25 million has also been made available under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, of which some £18.5 million is being funded from EU receipts.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,422 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent. over last year's provision. Vote 1, which now incorporates the provision previously provided in vote 2, includes £877 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards—an increase of £34 million over 1995–96. It includes £829 million for schools and colleges of further education.
Vote 1 also provides some £48 million for libraries, youth services and administration, £39 million for boards' capital projects, some £35 million for capital projects in voluntary and integrated schools and £134 million for recurrent expenditure by voluntary and integrated schools. Those amounts include some £24 million for integrated schools—an increase of £9 million over 1995–96.
Also in vote 1, £116 million is provided for local universities to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom and £125 million is for mandatory student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including some £17 million for arts and museums and some £3 million for community relations. About £11.5 million has also been made available under the EU peace and reconciliation programme, some £8.6 million of which is being funded from EU receipts.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Vote 1 provides £1,432 million for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. That represents an increase of 2.5 per cent. on last year's provision.
In vote 3, £26.5 million is for expenditure on certain miscellaneous health and personal social services costs. Costs of the services now borne on that vote were previously provided for in vote 3 administration and miscellaneous services. The provision sought reflects a 12.1 per cent. increase over last year's final net provision.
In vote 4, £150 million is for the Department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. It includes £99 million for the Social Security Agency, £7.5 million for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, £9 million for the Health and Social. Services Executive and £4 million for the Health Estates Agency.
In vote 5, £1,628 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 9.2 per cent. on last year and covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1996, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In vote 6, £370 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, housing benefits, the social fund and payments into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where, in vote 3, £5.8 million is sought for the community relations programme. In addition, some £3 million has also been made available through funding from EU receipts under the EU peace and reconciliation programme. It reflects the importance that the Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
In my opening remarks, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will wish to respond to points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), it may be helpful if I make clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security, including the current peace talks, are the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. Eric Illsley: The order is wide ranging, and as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, it covers the votes to the various departments of the Northern Ireland Office. We welcome the order. I shall comment on a few areas covered by it and ask a few questions to which I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to respond this evening. If he is not, he will no doubt respond in writing to any points that remain unanswered.
The BSE crisis is having a devastating effect on the beef industry in Northern Ireland and on the Northern Ireland economy, despite the fact that the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is extremely low. As I have said in previous debates, the beef industry is extremely important to Northern Ireland. Agriculture is one of the largest sectors of the Northern Ireland economy—if not the largest—and the beef industry is very important to it. Eighty per cent. of Northern Ireland's beef is exported, much of it to Europe, so the ban is having a devastating effect on the more than 16,000 farms in Northern Ireland that rely to some extent on cattle for the beef industry.
The cull is also causing one or two problems in the Province due to the backlog and delays in dealing with animals. I should like to put one or two points to the Government. I understand that young bulls aged between 24 and 30 months, which were not part of the original cull scheme, have now been accepted. The rate of compensation for those animals will be 171p a kilo, which is about 20p below the intervention rate. Although farmers in Northern Ireland are grateful that the bulls have been accepted into the cull programme, I understand that they are disappointed that the compensation payments fall short of what those animals would have made on the open market. In overall terms, each animal is worth about £1,000 on the market, but farmers will receive about £750 in compensation.
There are also fears that this week's meeting of the beef management committee in Europe will recommend reductions in the compensation rates payable to farmers

for the beef cull. One payment that is in line for a reduction is the 25p top-up payment, which is paid in compensation for steers and heifers reaching 30 months since 20 March 1996. I understand that there are different rates of compensation for an animal's live weight and its dead weight. The Government topped up the dead-weight payment by 25p, but there is a fear that that payment will disappear. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will press for those compensation payments to remain?
Compensation for a dead-weight animal is 171p a kilo, as opposed to 85p a kilo live weight. The difference is a factor of two. It is envisaged that it may be reduced to a factor of 1.6, which would reduce the 171p a kilo compensation payment to 140p a kilo. There is concern among farmers in Northern Ireland that they will lose out if such reductions are implemented. I urge the Minister to use whatever influence he has to mitigate any change in those payments proposed in European meetings. Northern Ireland farmers are asking the Government to ensure that farmers do not lose out as a result of the backlog in dealing with animals that will be part of the culling process.
The framework document that is before the European Union is likely—I hope—to be accepted. If it is, Northern Ireland will be in an advantageous position compared with the rest of the United Kingdom; 90 per cent. of herds in Northern Ireland are grass fed, there is a low incidence of BSE and a traceability system is in place. Will the Government take on board the possibility of the ban being lifted early in Northern Ireland if the framework document is accepted and the herds in Northern Ireland meet its criteria?
Fears have been flagged up in the press recently that a further 200 jobs might be lost at Shorts as a result of the collapse of Fokker. There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding those jobs. I understand that there is a possibility that Shorts might undertake a contract to build 70 aircraft wings. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to try to mitigate the effects of the collapse of Fokker, to assist in securing that contract and to protect the jobs at Shorts.
Also under the heading of the vote for economic development is the assistance voted to the Northern Ireland electricity industry, which is a long-standing problem in the Province. The issue surrounding electricity prices is worsening by the day. It is estimated that the difference between average Great Britain prices and those in Northern Ireland is 20 per cent., but in some areas it is even greater. The annual bill for a consumer in the London Electricity area, whose prices are close to the Great Britain average, is £305.12, compared with an estimated annual bill in Northern Ireland of £366.95—a difference of 20 per cent.—but the relatively higher level of consumption of electricity in Northern Ireland means higher electricity bills. The average bill in the London area of £305.12 should, therefore, be compared with a bill in Northern Ireland of more than £400—a difference of 32 per cent.
For pre-payment meter bills, which are in use for the lower paid in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, an average annual bill in the London area is £317 compared with £430 in Northern Ireland—a difference of 36 per cent. The difference between prices in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is, therefore, anywhere between 20 and 36 per cent.
It is interesting that, this week, Northern Ireland Electricity announced that its profits have increased by just under 12 per cent. to £105.9 million. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there are headlines in the press in Northern Ireland such as:
Northern Ireland Electricity Upbeat About Economic Growth".
The Government provided £15 million this year to keep electricity prices in Northern Ireland lower than they would have been. The price increase was kept to 2.6 per cent. as a result of that money, which is part of a package of £60 million that the Government have made available. They must consider other ways in which to spend the rest of that money because, next year, Northern Ireland Electricity will require a grant of £30 million to maintain those price reductions. All that that £15 million is doing is delaying the price increase that will come about when the payments cease. We must consider other ways of using the remainder of the £60 million. I urge the Government again to consider providing money towards Northern Ireland Electricity's capital investment programme, which would have a direct effect in reducing prices, as part of the price review that is under way.
That review will have to address two major problems associated with Northern Ireland Electricity, which were caused by the way in which it was privatised. First, contracts with the generators allow the complete pass-through of Northern Ireland Electricity's costs in power purchase agreements. They allow for fuel costs, plus availability payments, to be passed through—despite the fact that there is overcapacity in electricity generation in Northern Ireland. The only good news for electricity consumers in Northern Ireland comes when the power stations break down, because then they are not required to make the availability payments. Any efficiency savings are kept by the generators as profit, and not passed through.
The Labour party proposed a windfall tax on utilities not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the rest of the country, but the contracts for electricity generation in Northern Ireland allow any tax increase to be passed straight through to the consumer, so those profits cannot even be taxed by a future Government.
Northern Ireland paid a total of about £500 million for its electricity last year. NIE and the generators made about £150 million profit out of that. Last week, NIE announced profits of £104 million. Last year's profit was £87 million, achieved from a turnover of about £498 million. About half that turnover represents a straight pass-through of generating costs, so NIE made an £87 million profit on a turnover that is really nearer £250 million. That is an excessive rate of profit, and the Government should look at it long and hard.
This week, Warburgs said that NIE shares were still a good buy. That may be something of an understatement. The Office of Electricity Regulation Northern Ireland will produce a document later this month on the price review and a possible reference of the generating contracts in Northern Ireland to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but because of the problems in Northern Ireland I urge the Government to refer the whole situation to the MMC now rather than wait for the production of that document.
Under the votes for the Department of the Environment, I shall mention the fire services. I ask the Minister to confirm that a budget has now been set for the Northern Ireland fire brigade, which recently explained that it had particular problems because of the shortfall in funding for the service. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Northern Ireland fire service that its budget problems will be resolved.
Under the heading of the Department of Health and Social Services, I refer the Minister to mounting concern about the provision of health services in Northern Ireland. It would appear that the Under-Secretary of State now acknowledges that efficiency savings in the health service are no longer available, and that cuts will be implemented.
There have been warnings of cuts in services at several hospital trusts, and the Under-Secretary is on record as having said at a recent conference that he had to "come clean" and tell those assembled that
efficiency savings are just not possible … Therefore I acknowledge that there will be cuts in services",
although he did not like the fact. How can the Government keep referring to the 3 per cent. as efficiency savings, when there are no savings to be made? Surely the 3 per cent. now amounts to across-the-board cuts that will affect the level of health services provided in Northern Ireland.
I said that several hospital trusts in the Province had complained about the level of cuts being imposed on them by the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency requirement. At the conference the Under-Secretary also said that he did not think that any hospital closures would be envisaged in the near future. Perhaps he will reaffirm that when he replies.
I draw the Minister's attention to the widespread concern about the cuts that is being reported. The press in Northern Ireland is describing the efficiency savings as a "meltdown" in the health service. The Royal Victoria hospital will have to close its operating theatres for five weeks in the summer, which will mean the cancellation of hundreds of operations, and there are fears that people are being discharged too soon after surgery.
The South and East Belfast trust has made a cut of £1 million, involving a whole tier of management. I do not oppose that at all—I have long been an advocate of cuts in management, especially since Government reforms foist on the country a bill for more than £1 billion for extra health service management—but it would appear that the same trust is contemplating a reduction of a further £1 million. That will lead to the closure of wards and operating theatres, to longer waiting lists and to the closure of residential homes. Musgrave Park hospital describes "drastic" reductions, with more closures of operating theatres and wards.
We welcome the appropriation order and some of the votes that the Minister mentioned, especially those for tourism and training schemes. We welcome investment in Northern Ireland. None the less, we hope that the Government will take our suggestions on board and consider them closely.

Sir James Molyneaux: Under the heading of the Department of Economic Development, vote 1, may I mention that, since I put my supplementary question at Question Time this afternoon to the Minister


of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), about the possibility and desirability of the establishment of an economic committee representing both Houses of Parliament, I have been asked by interested Members to explain what I have in mind.
I have explained that I have in mind a body established not by rigid legislation but by simple resolution, perhaps even for a trial period. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman wondered whether the need for such a committee could be met by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is a worthy body, but it suffers from having far too wide a remit. Only occasionally can it concentrate on matters connected with the economy, and its members cannot be expected to meet at short notice to discuss with people such as Baroness Denton matters that require urgent attention, to consult overseas investors or to support the Baroness at major international conferences.
I do not imply or suggest that the committee, when it is formed—I shall not say "if' it is formed—should go to such places as a whole body, but a balanced team representing the various parties in the House, not the Northern Ireland parties alone, would be able to do much to underpin what Ministers, especially Baroness Denton, do when they go abroad to those prestigious gatherings.
There have been some such gatherings in the recent past, and many have been fruitful. I dare to suggest that they could have been even more fruitful if such a back-up body had been in place. Such a body, consisting of people experienced in industry, business and technology, from both Houses of Parliament, would do much to co-ordinate and boost measures to expand Northern Ireland's economy, not on a temporary basis, but on a rock-solid permanent basis.
Under the heading of the Department of Education, vote 1, I make a special plea for funds for two school replacements, and I shall give two examples of pressing need.
One is Ballycarrickmaddy primary school. The Official Reporters will be relieved to note that I propose to give them the spelling of that name in block letters. It is a rather ancient and small building that forms the core of a school that consists almost entirely of portacabins connected by muddy paths. It is unprotected from the weather, which is of the type one would expect on a hilltop site. The South Eastern education and library board has approved plans for a replacement school, which have been forwarded to the Department of Education.
I ask the Minister of State and his colleague to transmit to the Minister responsible for education a plea to ensure that account is taken of the fact that several other schools have been closed in that locality, the pupils from which are being bussed into Ballycarrickmaddy school. The roll has rocketed to 135 pupils, and it will be further increased in September because of the recent construction of 50 new homes within the catchment area. It is fashionable to advocate new schools as status symbols, but I am making this request, which is driven by dire necessity, on behalf of the South Eastern education and library board, the governors, teachers and pupils.
Another worthy funding request comes from the governors, teachers, parents and pupils of Tonagh school in Lisburn for a relatively small extension to a fairly modern school, where the number of pupils is increasing. Funding for the project would be comparatively modest. The number of pupils is increasing partly because of the

housing estate in which the school is situated, and partly because of the adjacent estates from which pupils are attracted by the high standards of teaching and discipline for which the school is noted. I visited the school recently, and I was shown the sketch plans at the site. Even to my inexperienced eye, the proposed extension represented no real structural problems within the curtilage of the site, as there is plenty of space. I hope that this modest requirement will be sympathetically considered for early action.
I apologise to Ministers for bouncing a matter on them unexpectedly, but I received correspondence on an urgent matter in this afternoon's post. I shall give the Minister of State copies so that he will be au fait with the details of a matter that must be dealt with by his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for education. The present chief executive of the South Eastern education and library board, Tom Nolan, is to retire. All of us who have had dealings with him will concede that he has been one of the most efficient education officers in Northern Ireland for a long time. His retirement will leave a big gap in the administration of education throughout Northern Ireland, and I hope that—as he is a comparatively young man—he will find another role. I say that as a 75-year-old.
The board wrote to the Department of Education on 5 March 1996 to inform it of the retirement of the chief executive, and asked for guidance from the Department on how to trigger the procedures necessary for the appointment of someone as important as a chief executive. The board is up against a timetable, as the new chief executive has to be in post by 1 January. The Minister will know that there is a staged sequence of events in such appointments, starting with advertising and followed by listing, short-listing and innumerable interviews and assessments. The effect is that the board now faces a deadline of no more than six or seven days.
I apologise for appearing to bounce the issue on Ministers, but I need a response. There may be a good reason why the Department failed to acknowledge the letter from the board of 5 March. Two reminders were sent, but neither was replied to. The board now needs advice on how to proceed. Without such advice, it would be quite illegal—given all the restrictions placed on such appointments—to proceed unless and until the board has the Department's permission. The Department must respond within the coming week to the responsible request from the board.
The vote on health was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). On 12 February 1996, the Minister said:
The resources are simply not available to meet all the demands placed upon health and social services
and added that spending on existing services would have to be reduced by 3 per cent., or £30 million, throughout the Province.
The Down and Lisburn trust is based in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and it is calculated that it will lose £1.8 million in the current year, but the situation is far more serious than that. Because of the late notification of the reductions announced on 12 February, there was no time to make the necessary adjustments. As a result, there will be serious service reductions in what I would call non-emergency areas of the health service in the current year, 1996–97. In those areas, the cut will not be


3 per cent., but about 30 per cent. We can imagine the effect of that in human terms—it will be disastrous. The missing services will distress patients and the general public, and it is forecast that additional reductions will be made in 1997–98. That will mean the disappearance of many facilities.
Since the Minister's statement on 12 February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as is his right—has been holding forth about the national finances. In a major speech recently, he indicated that education and the health service would be protected sectors and would not suffer when the Government made any cuts necessary to keep the national finances on course. The Chancellor implied that, if across-the-board cuts were forced upon the Government, they would not be applied to those protected areas. I regret that I do not have to hand the exact reference, but that was the broad sense of the Chancellor's statement and I have reason to believe that it is the broad sense of his views.
My plea to the Minister is this: in the short term, if extra funds can be found—as I believe they can—priority should be given to a booster injection in the current year to relieve the hardship that will undoubtedly result from the fact that the announcement was made comparatively near to the commencement of the current financial year.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I always understood that appropriation debates dealt with money delivered to the Northern Ireland Office which did not include security funding. Surely the fact that there has been a security bonus should not result in money being deducted from the Northern Ireland appropriation fund, as we were told that these were different budgets.

Sir James Molyneaux: That has always been a puzzle. I can never understand where we benefited from the peace dividend and the savings on security and security-related measures. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. For one moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask what had happened to the billions of pounds that have accrued over the past five years from privatisations. It is not a piffling sum, but in the region of £87 billion. That little nest egg must be hidden away somewhere, too. Goldsmith does not have it all.
I mentioned my first priority, and I shall repeat it for good measure. If there are any lottery funds lying around, please devote them to a booster injection for the health service in the current financial year. My second priority is slightly longer term. In the 1996–97 expenditure round, I plead with the Minister to move heaven and earth to ensure that there will be no—repeat, no—further reductions in the Northern Ireland allocation for health for 1997–98 and beyond.
My party, under successive Treasury spokesmen, has supported the Government's monetary policies, which have now borne fruit. The battle against inflation is won; interest rates are steadily reducing; unemployment continues to drop. It is not outrageous to suggest that we, the Government's supporters, who have kept the faith through all those tough years, are entitled to a share in those achievements. That does not apply only to one sector of Northern Ireland, but I have highlighted those that need it most.
I hope that my words can be conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I ought to do it myself instead of inviting someone else to incur his wrath by suggesting that it is not time for pre-election tax cuts. The Chancellor made his position on that clear last night, which was the right and honourable thing to do. I gently remind him that our nation, which has suffered pretty badly over many years, is entitled to support the Chancellor in proclaiming his faith that the Government will protect health and education, irrespective of whatever further troublesome cuts may be required elsewhere.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: The appropriation order debate gives us the opportunity to bring to the notice of the House various factors in relation to the provision of funds that are of special concern. It also allows us to express our views on matters that directly relate to our constituencies, under the terms of the order.
As I have stated on many previous occasions, north-west Belfast is an area of severe material deprivation. In addition, my constituency has suffered more murders and civil unrest than any other part of Northern Ireland over the past 27 years. It has a disproportionate number of elderly people, many of whom live in isolation, poverty and fear. They are honest, decent people who have contributed over the years to maintaining normality in their communities.
In supporting the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), I must say that the health and social services available to my elderly constituents have declined steadily in recent years. This year, there has an overall 3 per cent. reduction in the health service budgets, a move that I and my colleagues deplore.
To add insult to injury, the Eastern health and social services board, the purchaser of services for my area, has devised a formula for funding services for the elderly that has reduced services to them across north and west Belfast by a further £2.5 million. On the basis of a half-completed study by Sheffield university, the board has decided, in the interests of so-called equity, to transfer £2.5 million out of the most socially and economically deprived part of Northern Ireland. It has done so on the basis of a formula that does not recognise that elderly people are affected by deprivation. That, in turn, affects their needs for health and social care.
In real terms, the cuts mean the closure of three elderly persons' homes in my constituency, an area where there is little private care; a 5,000 hour a week reduction in home help services, which are a lifeline to many elderly constituents; and the loss to the local community of 120 jobs. The difference between maintaining many elderly people in their own homes through a modest service and maintaining them elsewhere is reflected in misery, human suffering and neglect. The Government are supposed to be targeting social needs in north-west Belfast and providing additional programmes to give it a chance to catch up. The Industrial Development Board is striving, with some success, to bring jobs into my constituency and that of my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).
What is the Eastern health and social services board playing at? How can it present the transfer of resources as equitable? How can it argue that social deprivation


does not affect the elderly and infirm? Why has it acted on the basis of a half-completed study, without bothering to wait for the final outcome, when the results are such a kick in the teeth to my constituents, and fly in the face of the Government's policies, which aim to regenerate the most deprived areas of Belfast, Protestant and Catholic alike?
I pay tribute to the Minister for giving the hon. Member for Belfast, West and me a sympathetic hearing when we recently talked to him about our concerns for the elderly in our constituencies. However, I say with all respect, we need more than sympathy. We need a complete reappraisal of the conditions that affect the elderly in north and west Belfast. Research shows that people in disfranchised groups suffer more ill-health and die younger but are also less likely to receive, or benefit from, health and social care. For the elderly population, the dilemma is even more acute because the cost of health care services rises dramatically with age. Hence, the dominant factors in allocating services to this group have been the numbers of the elderly and their age distribution, which is normally broken into the age groups of 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85-plus.
However, the people of deprived areas are unlikely to live as long as the general population. The health status of the surviving elderly in such areas may be worse than that of their counterparts elsewhere. Thus, the health needs of the 65-to-74 age group in deprived areas may be similar to those of the 75-to-84 group in a more affluent area. That is the situation that pertains to north and west Belfast. We have more chronically ill elderly, across the age spectrum, than any other part of the Province. We need extra resources to cater for their needs, not fewer.
The Minister knows how concerned I am about the cuts in orthopaedic surgery. It is inconceivable that elderly people who have subscribed all their lives to their country should be sentenced to pain and suffering, some of them for the rest of their lives, because of monetary considerations. It is an indictment of the Government for them to say that, because joint replacement is not life-threatening, it should be the subject of major financial savings. It is envisaged that the reduction in orthopaedic surgery will mean ward and theatre closures and job cuts. That will be another traumatic blow for a long-suffering elderly population.
On housing, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the efforts of the Housing Executive in contributing to meeting the housing needs of the Province by strengthening its strategic role. The transfer of the Department of the Environment housing functions in relation to housing associations and the private rented sector will facilitate a more comprehensive approach across all types of housing tenure.
In north and west Belfast, some housing factors are different for different religious sections of the population. In general, Catholics suffer more from overcrowding whereas Protestants suffer more from older housing. For both communities, housing remains a significant factor for their regeneration. Issues such as expansion of housing capacity, upgrading of older housing and improving tenure mix remain most important for many residents.
I am extremely concerned about the difficulties and delays associated with the Housing Executive grants process. Delays of up to three years are just not acceptable, especially when applicants are living in

unacceptable conditions. I should like to see more of the executive's budget directed to dealing with the backlog, in the interests of the whole housing stock.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is my hon. Friend not also concerned that handicapped people for whom occupational therapists have recommended certain things are kept waiting, sometimes for years?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that my colleague has brought that subject up. We are very much aware, particularly in north Belfast, but throughout the Province, of the terrible delays in providing for elderly people the facilities that they need to give them a meaningful life. I thank my colleague for bringing that to the notice of the Minister at this stage.
I am also critical of the Housing Executive's redevelopment programme. Decisions are taken to redevelop an area without adequate provision for those who are displaced, especially those who wish to live in the immediate area. I am also concerned about the criteria for valuing properties in redevelopment areas. The basic offer often does not reflect the true value of the property, when compared to other properties in the immediate area. I cite an area in Crumlin road—Rosewood, Yarrow and Albertville drive—where excellent three-storey brick houses have been incorporated into a redevelopment scheme. The houses are mostly owned by elderly occupiers who do not wish to leave their home, where they have lived for most of their lives. The houses have been vested. There is no public sector housing in the area suitable for them. They have been offered less than half of what it will take to purchase a house of less than half the size, where their furniture will just not fit. To top it all, the executive is taking up to £15 per week in rent to allow those elderly people to live in their own homes.
Quite a number of elderly people, some of whom are infirm, will not be able to cope with the trauma of moving home at their age. They will either have to stay in their houses, thereby holding up redevelopment, or move to residential care, where their assets, including their homes, will be required to keep them. There should be some discretion within housing management to cater for situations in which residents live in their own homes after vesting. They should not be subject to rent. The property should not come under executive ownership until the value of the house has been fixed and paid. Then, and only then, should rent be demanded.
I welcome the introduction of the order on industrial pollution control. North and west Belfast citizens suffered much in the past as a result of serious and life-shortening pollution emanating from a mill environment. There was a serious lack of attention to any form of pollution control in such circumstances. Health and safety factors were largely ignored in the continuing quest for increased production, to the detriment of the health of the community.
I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, in particular, Mr. Bob Brown and his staff. Our bird population in Northern Ireland has suffered much in recent years from human activities. It is noticeable just how many of our young people now take an interest in this important aspect of our environment, but unfortunately such dedication is not matched by Government action, which is often perceived to be


retrospective and sluggishly bureaucratic. How often have we watched helplessly as other species have become almost extinct, as another habitat falls to development pressure?
While I am fully aware of the global nature of the problem, I feel that each of us should act directly in respect of our local concerns. For that reason, I continue to campaign for an independent environmental watchdog in Northern Ireland. I want a body with power and purpose to protect and police the whole local environment without becoming embroiled in political wrangles. I believe that such a body is essential to match the enthusiasm of our young people and is the most important single step that can be taken to preserve what still exists for successive generations.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the appropriation debate. I should like to touch on one or two aspects of some of the headings of expenditure which are before us this evening, beginning with the Department of Agriculture. My first comment is a fairly modest one about the problems facing agriculture and fisheries. Will the Minister take on board the suggestion that what was known as the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development should be reinstated? The scheme was suspended in March 1995 because of over-subscription and insufficient finance, but that showed the very need to continue the programme, which has not been reinstated after more than 12 months. For the uninitiated, SPARD is a scheme to assist farmers to update and modernise the facilities on their farm. My request is modest, but reinstatement soon would be welcome assistance to the farming community of Northern Ireland.
Under the heading of agriculture, two major problems face Northern Ireland. One is the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which has been dealt with in considerable detail, and with eloquence, by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on the Front Bench. It would not be to the benefit of the House if I repeated all that he had to say. I simply underscore one or two points by way of brief sentences.
As my hon. Friend said, the problem is much more severe in Northern Ireland than it is in Great Britain because 70 per cent. of our production is exported, whereas only 10 per cent. of British production is exported. Recovery of home consumption, which I understand has progressed to 85 per cent. in Britain, does not touch the problem in Northern Ireland. It would not do so even if home consumption recovered 100 per cent., because of our export dependency. It is important that, in the negotiations that are now taking place, a decision be taken to treat Northern Ireland as a special case, in view of its special history, of the lack of prevalence of the disease and of the computerised tracing system, which can trace an animal from any beef, dairy or other herd right back to its source.
Such a tracing system is not available anywhere else. I do not think that it is even available in Europe. It gives us the facility to identify immediately that which is capable of eradication and the measures that will have to be applied if the present suggestions do not produce immediate success.
In the meantime, one or two issues, such as the storage of carcases between slaughter and rendering, must be addressed. The existing rendering facilities must be examined. I reaffirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said: there must be a continuation of the top-up supplement that is paid for steers and heifers—and it should be extended to beef bulls. If those matters were addressed on a day-to-day basis, it would help to alleviate some of the problems.
Another problem facing agriculture in Northern Ireland is the harvest from sea fishing. The recently published Lassen report gives a benchmark to the Northern Ireland fishing industry of minus 40 per cent. In other words, the European Commission is asking Northern Ireland to reduce its fishing fleet by 40 per cent., and it has already been reduced. I know that Baroness Denton has an active and productive interest in representing the interests of the fishermen. The latest suggestion is at variance with the requirements of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland—and it is contrary to scientific evidence.
All sides—the fishing industry, the processors, the Department of Agriculture and the scientific advisors to the Department—consider the Lassen report to be based on a false premise. The benchmark of 40 per cent. refers to nephrops, or prawns, and the other species that are caught incidental to them. It would be horrendous if the fishing industry were cut by 40 per cent.—it would kill the industry.
It is frustrating that the evidence in the report is contradictory. The report says that nephrops are not an endangered species, yet they are being used as the reason for the 40 per cent. reduction. I hope that the Department of Agriculture is represented in Brussels, as we speak this evening, and that it is putting the case for the fishing industry. The fishing industry and the farming industry in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, will be devastated economically.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we have anything like the cut in the fishing fleet that is demanded, the on-shore infrastructure will also disappear because it could not be supported by the smaller number of fishermen coming ashore? Does he further agree that there is an abundance of haddock in the Irish sea and that it will not be harvested if the cuts are implemented? Does not the Hague preference militate against the Northern Ireland fleet, but help the southern fleet—which cannot catch the quota that it already has?

Mr. McGrady: I agree 100 per cent. with the three points that the hon. Gentleman raised. With respect to the Hague preference, there is a non-Hague official swap between the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland fishermen on the various catches. The downstream job creation from the fishing industry is fundamental to the economic welfare of my constituency and to other constituencies in Northern Ireland.
The people who hope to provide the infrastructure for tourism in Northern Ireland are frustrated. The Northern Ireland tourist board and the Department of Economic Development deal with tourism, but they do not have a cohesive policy. There was a huge upsurge in tourism to Northern Ireland during the ceasefire—and it has been sustained because of the de facto ceasefire. The immediate problem was the creation of bed accommodation for the tourist industry.
My constituency is a tourist-orientated and scenic part of the country—all hon. Members are welcome to visit it during the summer. Tourists were turned away and had to be sent to the Republic of Ireland for accommodation. The people who are now trying to provide the infrastructure, and who can do it quickly and efficiently, are not getting any assistance or encouragement because of the lack of policy of the Northern Ireland tourist board. That situation must be addressed quickly. I understand that there is a target development strategy and that the Northern Ireland tourist board has identified that, between 1995 and 2000—just four years from now—we shall need a 59 per cent. increase in bed accommodation.
Up to April 1996, the board's policy was to concentrate its entire budget and effort on three or four big hotel projects. However, tourists—as distinct from those attending conferences—want to stay in small, family-run hotels that are convenient to their places of pleasure. I mean that in the sense of amenities, seasides and mountains, rather than the city types of pleasures to which other hon. Members would be more accustomed than I. The tourists want small, well-run, high-class hotels and guest houses.
I know of two hotels in Warrenpoint, which is a tourist area, and of two in Newcastle, one of the biggest tourist centres in Northern Ireland. They could produce 50 beds within a matter of months, but they cannot get any assistance because of the absence of a policy. We need a policy to address the accommodation needs of our tourists.
I shall deal with job provision against the background of my constituency's inability to cash in on the tourist industry, of the terrible problems in the agricultural industry and of the problems faced by the fishing ports. During Northern Ireland Question Time, the Minister gave us some information about the economic upsurge in Northern Ireland. He said that 4,800 jobs have been created over the past three or four years. In the past week, 1,800 jobs have been created in West Belfast, Newtown Abbey, Larne and Cookstown.
I find it puzzling that, fiscal year after fiscal year, only 6 per cent. of first-time visitors to Northern Ireland, and only 5 per cent. of repeat visitors, come to an area that is covered by the three council districts of Banbridge, of Down and of Newry and Mourne, which includes all of my constituency and another constituency. Not one single inward investment job has been created.
That statistic is repeated year after year—and year after year, I ask the same question and I am assured that this is accidental. At some point, statistics have to be believed and someone has to say, "There is a flaw here; there is something wrong here." We are accessible: we are 10 miles from the harbour of Belfast in the northern half of Northern Ireland, and there is the relatively new Warrenpoint in the southern half. The problem spills over into industrial site provision. The Industrial Development Board was to close the Warrenpoint site. The acquisition of the Downpatrick site has gone for on six years without any sod being acquired by the board. I can no longer consider those matters to be entirely accidental.
Against that backcloth of economic difficulties in the fishing, farming and tourist industries, I ask again for a review of the siting of jobs because, as I have often said, if we are to have equity and justice, job location is just as important as job allocation.
An item in the programme of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland—a simple one involving the written test for driving licences—might seem a small matter to raise in such a lofty debate. People in the whole of Northern Ireland are being asked to go to six separate centres. In his reply to my letter on the subject, the Minister said:
While the theory test contract provides for fewer theory test centres than there are practical centres, this reflects both the differences between the 2 types of tests and the necessity to maintain the theory test fee at a reasonable level for all candidates … Adding additional centres to cope with only 30,000–40,000 theory tests a year would be an uneconomic proposition and would require a significant increase to the theory test fee for everyone.
I do not know how the Minister obtained that information because, as I understand it, the new agency is hiring new offices, new furnishings, new equipment and new everything else, although hundreds of education institutions are willing to provide this service for as little as £35 a test, however many people are in that test. Therefore, it has nothing to do with economics.
Primarily, teenagers will be taking the driving test. They are students, trainees and the unemployed and they will have to travel 50 or 40 miles to do a half-hour written test. It is a bit ludicrous. They will have to have a driver with them, to take a day off school, training or work, and to flake off to those places.
People cannot get from where I live to the nearest driving test by public transport. We do not have trains in my constituency and we have an infrequent bus service. The local institute of technology can say, "Here is our examination hall. We will charge you £35 a session all in." What more economy would the Government want than that? Therefore, I ask the Minister again to consider closely the provision of some more centres, which will be more economic.
I shall quickly move on to the Department of Health and Social Services, to echo what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) has said about Mr. Tom Nolan and the services that he has rendered to education. I urge the Department to give the authorities a direction as to whether they must fill the post of chief executive, which expires, I think, in August this year. It is ludicrous that they are not able to move one way or the other.
I echo what my colleagues have said regarding the Minister's statement of 12 February that there would be a 3 per cent. cut in funding. He announced a £54 million increase, but said that a 3 per cent. cut was required in efficiency. I give him one credit, and I have said this publicly before. He said that there would be a 1.5 per cent. cut in finance and a 1.5 per cent. cut in services. That was the first time I heard a Minister say, "Services will be cut." They certainly will be.
The community care budget of the Lisburn and Down trust has been cut by 30 per cent. in one go. That means 10,000 man hours. Remember what those man hours are. They are spent not in an assembly line or a shop, but with old, invalid and physically disabled people. A total of 1,200 visits have been cancelled in my constituency. That affects the most vulnerable and dependent parts of our communities. It is scandalous.
To be fair, I know that the Minister or the Department did not intend that to happen. Some of the gurus, whiz kids or whatever they are called nowadays—consultants


perhaps—in the Department of Finance and Personnel got their sums wrong. As a consequence, people are suffering. If, as anticipated, there is a 3 per cent. cut in 1997–98 and in 1998–99, I assure the Minister and the House that the health service will totally collapse in Northern Ireland. That is not an alarmist statement, because we see what is happening in the service.
An anomaly is hidden within all this. The 3 per cent. cut is across the board in terms of hospitals, irrespective of whether people are efficient or a fat cow, as I say. My local hospital has been credited as being one of the most efficient and cost-effective. With due respect to my other colleagues, city hospitals seem not to have the same degree of cost-effectiveness, yet they will both be penalised in the same way.
I throw in a little minnow to find out whether I can catch anything. Is it true that hospitals that are not able to meet their budgets have been given some supplementary funding of £400,000, although others which have met their budgets have been squeezed further and further? There is a difference between cuts in Northern Ireland and cuts in Great Britain. Money from cuts in Great Britain is recirculated in the area in a different form and reapplied to the provision of service. In Northern Ireland, the 3 per cent. cuts in funding go to the Treasury and cannot be used to provide better additional services. That is another reason for the Minister to consider the matter carefully.
I seem to have taken up more than the allocation of time. I should like the Minister to respond—perhaps not this evening, but in writing through his colleagues—to some of my points because the matters that I raised in the appropriation debate on 19 February 1996 still await an answer.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I rise to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to note that, in an important debate that deals with everyday, bread-and-butter Northern Ireland issues such as the economy, it is left to the Social Democratic and Labour party to join us in the Ulster Unionist party to look after the interests of Northern Ireland's people. In that context, I trust that the hon. Member for South Down will not think that I am trespassing into his territory when I refer to the Department of Education vote 1 and welcome the introduction of the voucher scheme into Northern Ireland and the additional funds that will be arriving there.
I underscore the importance, about which some of us learnt this morning, of young people being introduced at an early age to reading. It has been recognised that in America that $1 spent in the pre-age teaching of reading will save $7 later. It might be worth bearing that in mind as we consider the whole concept of education.
I want to deal with a specific request to me from the Tyrella primary school, which I believe is in South Down. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember, and Ministers may have had time to read it in Hansard, a question put during Defence questions this week about the funding of the teaching of officers' children in boarding schools.
Many children from the base at Ballykinler attend the Tyrella primary school. As it is a mobile base with people coming and going, the school faces difficulties as the numbers ebb and flow. Many children who attend the

school may have been to two or three other primary schools during their school life, so it is important that the school be retained. I understand that it has been threatened with the loss of another two teachers. I ask the Minister to discuss the matter with his colleagues and to consider whether we should give the support necessary to provide education for local children and for the children of those who serve in Northern Ireland as part of the mobile forces.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the Department of Health and Social Services vote 1. I reject the specious argument that is made time and again that Northern Ireland is funded at a higher per capita rate than the rest of the United Kingdom. It is no longer true that our funding is greater than that of Wales or Scotland and it is only greater than that of England by 14 per cent. or 11 per cent. per capita. It is ridiculous to compare per capita expenditure in a nation of 48 million with large conurbations—much of the money goes to those areas, particularly in the south-east and the midlands—with expenditure in a community of 1.5 million which is scattered throughout Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to examine that question of funding.
I empathise with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) who referred to care for the aged. I often wonder whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. For example, a contract has been awarded to paint a social service establishment that is to be sold. If hon. Members intend to sell their houses they do not paint them first as it is unlikely that they will get a return on their money. The new buyer will be interested not in the decor but in whether the building has solid foundations. Decisions have been taken to paint rooms without consulting the office workers about the colour. They then request that the rooms be repainted a different colour, only to see them painted again in the original colour. That is a waste of money.
It is time that there was an in-depth examination of the administration of health and social services in Northern Ireland. While it is a rule of the military that one protects one's base, I am not convinced that it should be translated into providing luxurious accommodation for administrators while cutting expenditure at the coalface. Such issues are causing tremendous concern in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, I have not been successful in the Members' ballots so I have not spoken about health issues in Northern Ireland for some time. However, I have tried to probe the changes to the charter mark, particularly regarding waiting lists. Has the charter mark been set aside completely, irrespective of the fact that people have been on the orthopaedic waiting list for more than a year? Some of them have urgent conditions, but they are told that there is no money.
It is interesting to note that that money comes primarily from boards. I have examined the situation and I have discovered that trusts are prepared to do work for fundholders. I do not criticise them, but I think that they should provide similar services for the boards. The trusts currently provide services for boards at the end of the year when they may have more money. That results in a mad rush to complete contracts in a short time rather than steady work throughout the year.
I am not convinced that the closure of wards in July and August represents a sacrifice. I believe that it may simply be convenient for the institution's administration to close over the holidays. It is time that we faced that issue rather than blame the closure on a shortage of funds.
As I am not dealing only with local issues, I draw the Minister's attention to the Sperrin Lakeland trust in Fermanagh and West Tyrone, whose team attended the nursing awards. I congratulate the team members on their achievements, although I do not know the results of those awards as I had to leave before they were announced.
Home-start in West Tyrone was working with the Sperrin Lakeland trust, but the Western board has now decreed that it will not be possible to fund West Tyrone home-start because of the Department's requirement to reduce expenditure by 3 per cent. Its important work has now ceased. It is very difficult to motivate voluntary workers when their co-workers are suddenly dispensed with. That service to families in West Tyrone appears to be a casualty of the decisions and the mechanisms of boards and trusts. The Northern Ireland assistant director of Home-Start United Kingdom said:
it is difficult to identify where responsibility lies and neither body would appear to be taking ultimate responsibility for this decision".
Nevertheless the staff have gone and the work has been impeded.
We are still in the midst of discussions about the amalgamation of hospitals in Northern Ireland, particularly those in Belfast. I must confess that I empathise with the work that is going on, but at times I cannot fully understand the rationale behind the decisions. Not much light is shed on the subject when we write asking for guidance and information. I follow in the tradition of John Robinson, who never refuses light from any quarter, but I have difficulty glimpsing any light when I write to administrators and others requesting information about why decisions have been taken.
For example, I may receive the bland response that every consultant in dermatology had been consulted. However, I then discover that that is not so. Some dermatologists may favour basing the service at the Belfast City hospital, but the Department recommends that it be provided at the Royal hospital. I do not know whether that is a juggling exercise, but the Belfast City hospital has been decentralising service provision for some time and it does not seem sensible to change that arrangement completely.
I come now, under vote 1 of the Department of Education, to the Sports Council. Is the Minister aware of at least a suggestion in a report which has been drawn to my attention that the Sports Council has named the Boys' Brigade and the Churches League$football leagues under the Football Association$as sectarian? As a Boys' Brigade officer in the past and a chaplain for a long time, I know that no one was denied membership of the Boys' Brigade as long as he was prepared to work within the brigade's rules. In a world where discipline is sadly lacking, the discipline of the Boys' Brigade is needed.
People from outside denominations and outside religious bodies have been members of the Boys' Brigade, and to speak of the Churches League as sectarian because it may be identified with particular churches is surely more fallacious than recognising the Gaelic Athletic Association as a bona fide body to receive grants. It is more sectarian than any other and is anti the security services of the Province. If that is the direction in which the Sports Council is going, it is time that it was brought back into line.
Many of our international footballers, some of whom have gone to high positions in football clubs in Great Britain, have begun by kicking a football in a Boys' Brigade team. It would be a tragedy if that development were impeded.

Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that a boy's football team in the Portrush-Port Stewart area was unsuccessful in its application for funding to visit Holland from the Department of Education because it did not have a 60:40 mix? There is no chance of getting such a mix in that area. Surely that means that the religious criteria that the Department is applying with regard to funding for cross-community purposes should be looked at carefully and grants should reflect the area in which children live.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Department continues down that road there will be a very cross community because it will result in biased decisions which impede development. All our communities are, to some extent or other, cross-communities. I happen to represent a constituency, compared with other constituencies, with a high proportion of ethnic communities, including Chinese and Indian. To what extent should people be told that they should be in the majority group when they may want to be in the minority group?
What about vote 1 and the Department of Economic Development? I have tabled a question to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many representations he has received concerning the Europe Tool Company investment in Northern Ireland. I was told that that was a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My information is that the President of the Board of Trade had received complaints from particular industries in Great Britain, saying that that was unfair competition which would damage some of their tool companies.
I have not yet had a reply from the Northern Ireland Office, but the reality is that some of the companies that are complaining are purchasing tools from Korea when they could be manufactured by British people in the United Kingdom, strengthening the United Kingdom economy and giving it another base in the world. Therefore, I question whether the Government are pressing ahead with that development under that vote.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down has gone because he regularly pleads the case for South Down and Newry and Armagh. I want to make a simple plea for Belfast, South, which is fifth in the unemployment league in Northern Ireland out of 18 constituencies and has the highest number of female unemployed. I do not know whether that has something to do with changes in the textile industry, in addition to which now there is the possible move of the Ormeau bakery. We are not sure where it is going and I hope that it will remain in my constituency, but I cannot guarantee that until the final decision has been made. If not, we will have lost another considerable pool of employment in the constituency. I ask that consideration be given to that.
The media has said that the large vote for the women's coalition which came from South Belfast was because there were so many professional women there, but I urge journalists to consider the matter in greater depth. There are intelligent women who do not come from the professional classes who are trying to find their way.


Some of the most advanced work has been done in south Belfast by women and others who have sought to try to raise the standards for women in their community. I should like to think that we would find that redress in balance reflected in our unemployment figures.
Other things could be said, but we have opened up issues. We welcome the funds that are coming in, but we must constantly ask whether they are being used in the right way or whether attitudes have become entrenched and people have been able to use their positions to steer money in a particular direction. We must regularly ask ourselves whether we can do better with the available funds. I think that we can. At the moment, we are not necessarily doing the best for the people of Northern Ireland in our spending on health and education.

Mr. William Ross: I, too, listened with care to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) making a plea for his constituency. He and I and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) have the same problem, and it is one to which we shall no doubt return with increasing frequency during the coming months and years unless there is a considerable improvement in the distribution of investment from overseas in Northern Ireland. Many of us are not very happy when we find our constituencies and folk bypassed time after time. Often, as in my case, they are areas which have been completely peaceful for the past 25 years, and they do not think much of their reward for good behaviour.
I had not intended to start there, but rather with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) on fluoride during Northern Ireland questions today which, if I may say so, received a most unhelpful answer. I noticed that the Minister quietly skated around my hon. Friend's point, which was simply that such mass medication was not acceptable to the population at large or to the representatives of the people at large, and had nothing whatever to do with whether it was good for us. But we are told by the experts that what we think does not matter because they believe that it is good for us, so they will cram it down our throats anyway. Such an attitude is not acceptable in a democratic society.
I have talked to dentists and others and they have said they do not think that there is any harm in fluoridation, and that it is quite a sensible idea because it stops tooth decay and so on, but one lady said to me, not so very long ago, that while she herself did not believe that it did any harm, it was completely wrong for an unelected quango, appointed by the Ministry, to tell people what they should and should not drink. That is my principal objection to the fluoridation of water. It is mass medication whether people want it or not. For that to be said by a smiling Conservative Minister is strange, coming as it does from a party which demands freedom of choice.
As it is possible for anyone who wants fluoride to take it in tablet form, I should have thought that it would be much cheaper to make fluoride tablets freely available through chemist shops at much less cost than adding it to the water, and then folk could make up their own minds whether they wanted decaying teeth or fluoridated teeth. That is what I call freedom of choice, and it is a far step

from mass medication. It is not the fluoridation of water that can cure the problem but rather a change of diet. If we can reduce our children's sugar intake, no doubt most of them would have much healthier teeth. I cannot say that I disliked sweets when I was young, but parents now take more interest and are constantly concerned about the amount of sugar that children consume in sweet drinks and so on. We need a fundamental change of attitude in the home between children and parents. That issue touches on the health and social services budget, which leads me to the next issue that was raised with me—the pay and conditions of service for employees of Foyle Health and Social Services trust.
I have to confess that my information is somewhat sketchy, because the matter arose only at the weekend, but my understanding is that doctors and dentists, and probably some others, received a 2 per cent. increase in salary this year, and that it was, as usual, staggered. I understand that it is a national pay award and that it has nothing to do with the trust as such. My understanding is that the increase should be paid by May, but it has not been paid as yet, and, it seems, it will not even be discussed by the trust until the June meeting.
I presume that, somewhere along the line, the money is available to the trust. I presume that it is sitting in the trust's bank account and that the trust is drawing down interest on it. If it is, that is quite unforgivable. It should be in the bank accounts of those who are entitled to it. I should also be grateful to know what pay increase has been agreed for nurses and industrial staff. Will they get anything on top of the national agreements? When will they get their increase, as cleaners and the other industrial staff are fairly poorly paid and need any increase that is available? No worker should be deprived of money for which they have laboured for any longer than is necessary.
I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who quite properly asked about BSE. Only now are people throughout the country waking up to the size of the problem, which is one of vast proportions. As I do so often, I waited in vain for some lead from the hon. Gentleman as to how the Labour party would resolve the problem. The Labour party needs to say what policy it would follow, as the problem will be with us for some time. It is a difficult problem, and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have said rather more than he did.
Having said that, I believe that responsibility still lies with Ministers on the Treasury Bench, so I shall make some points to which I hope to get sensible answers. First, I want an assurance that compensation for 30-month-plus animals will remain at its present levels until the huge backlog of cattle for slaughter has been dealt with. We cannot kill the animals quickly enough and the backlog will be with us for some time, especially in Northern Ireland, which exports so much of its stock. I believe that the figure is nearer 80 per cent. than 70 per cent. Indeed, 28 per cent. of all United Kingdom beef exports came from Northern Ireland. They went to Europe and South Africa—to all sorts of places—and some of those markets will start taking beef again if we can get the ban lifted. Until that happy situation arrives and the backlog of cattle has been dealt with the present compensation levels will remain.
We have an enormously difficult situation in that the beef market has collapsed and there is an urgent need of additional finance and support to prevent many farmers


from getting into severe financial difficulties and possibly going out of business, in the sense that they will not have the money to replace their present stock when they sell it. They will probably have to sell it for less than they paid for it. Farmers are small businesses. They do not have large bank accounts. They are dependent on a steady flow of money as their wages every year, and unless something more is done, the entire agriculture industry in Northern Ireland will be in a very depressed state. There is currently no market at all for young bulls under 24 months of age and those more than 420 kg deadweight, and therefore there is an urgent need for the 420 kg upper limit in intervention to be removed, or some other outlet for such cattle.
The reality is that farmers, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said, are losing a lot of money. They are losing £250 to £300 a head, which is their entire profit plus part of the buying price of their cattle. They are being sold at a considerable loss. The farmer simply cannot open the door and let them out. He cannot walk away from them. He cannot stop them eating—unless they are slaughtered. There is a real problem with such stock. The Government must go a bit further than they have and deal with the problem. We must have an assurance that once the United Kingdom and the European Union agree the criteria for the removal of the export ban and it is up and running, the ban on Northern Ireland will be lifted immediately. I think that Northern Ireland can meet the agreed criteria, as we are further ahead than any other place, but we need some light at the end of the tunnel, and some confirmation that Northern Ireland will be free to export as soon as the agreement is reached.
The reality, however, is that the lifting of the ban is not the end of the problem. There is a tremendous marketing job to be done in the former markets and in new markets once the ban is lifted, and that will also need financial support. It is not only a Northern Ireland problem but a United Kingdom problem. I hope that the Government are taking that fact on board as well and that in a week or so cold storage will be available in Northern Ireland so that we can get rid of the existing backlog of cattle as soon as possible.
I draw the Minister's attention to two other difficulties. When a holding in Northern Ireland is flagged up as "BSE contact", it is the holding that is flagged up, not the animals on it. It is therefore conceivable that the farmer sells every animal, cuts his losses and gets out. Let us say that he has bought a lottery ticket so that he is able to replace his stock and that he has been very lucky. But that does not get rid of his problem. The holding is still flagged. He takes his cattle to the market six months or a year down the road. The computer will still show that these are flagged cattle and that the holding is "BSE contact". It is completely new stock. It has had no contact with BSE, but it is still flagged up and as a result is pretty well valueless.
What will the Government do to resolve that difficulty? How will they remove the flagging from the holding to the cattle? What will they do about the other problem that is sitting grinning at us like a death sentence three months down the road with regard to suckler herds? Suckler herd farmers cannot keep their calves over the winter. They have to be sold in September, October or November. There is no food for them. There is no way of keeping them. Quite a few flagged suckler herds in Northern Ireland are in that position. I know that the Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was looking at the problem. What has been done about it in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Many people seem to be being caught because they bought an animal five or six years ago from a milk herd that had been in contact with BSE. There may be nothing wrong with their stock. That problem needs to be resolved quickly.
I shall say no more about BSE and the horrors associated with it, but turn to a problem that I have already discussed with the Minister: the new hospital at Coleraine, and, in particular, cancer services there. The Minister has already been given a copy of one of the several hundred letters that I have received from people in the Coleraine area. If he has not yet replied to me, I hope that he will do so soon. Coopers and Lybrand is currently conducting a review; consultants at the hospital tell me that if the hospital is not given a cancer unit, the effect will be considerable. The area really needs such a unit. If my office has not already asked the Minister for a meeting, it will do so no later than tomorrow. I want to take a delegation to discuss the problem with him.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not want to detract from my hon. Friend's argument in favour of cancer provision, although there may be other arguments to deploy. Does he share my concern, and that of many other people, about the fact that the boundary line and environmental works have been completed, but the hospital that is required first and foremost has not been built?

Mr. Ross: The laboratory has already been built, and the final reassessment has now taken place. That scares the living daylights out of the folk in the area, who feel that the place has been reassessed to death. They want to see contractors on site. A total of £47 million has been committed to that hospital. I have been told time and again that it is safe, but I want to hear the Minister tell me so yet again from the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will also tell me that he will meet the delegation that I want to take to see him. Those people want to know what is needed, and are prepared to argue their case. They do not want to be fobbed off with suggestions that they should go and see members of the trust or the board. The matter should be dealt with by the Minister, and I am becoming a little fed up with being told to talk to someone else.
Another problem—in which the hon. Member for South Down would no doubt have been interested had he cared to remain with us—relates to the use of asbestos cement pipes from Mourne to Belfast. The Minister and I have corresponded about that in the pages of Hansard. I asked a parliamentary question about it, and was told that the asbestos fibres were removed by coagulation and filtration, which removed the bulk of the suspended material. My question was carefully worded, as was the answer. That process does remove the bulk of the material, but it does not remove all of it. According to the Green Book published by the Department just after the contract was let, the use of asbestos cement pipes should be avoided. How does the Minister justify the continuing use of such pipes, which are made outside the country anyway?
At that time, the contract had not even begun. The Government laid down the rule that would avoid the use of asbestos cement—I do not suppose that they did that just because it is good for people—and then, all at once,


we were told that the use of asbestos would go ahead, but that the bulk could be removed by filtration. The filtration fount, however, is at the wrong end of the asbestos pipes. Documents published in the United States raise concerns in my mind, and I hope that the Minister will give the matter careful consideration.
The asbestos problem is probably a bit like BSE. It is pretty safe to eat British beef—I have never stopped doing so, because I do not think that there is any real danger—but there is the question of perception. The perception is that the use of asbestos should be avoided, and it could easily be avoided through the use of pipes made in Northern Ireland, or even steel pipes made in Great Britain. No doubt that would be very useful, if such pipes are still made here.
Finally, let me raise an interesting constituency case. If I do not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister—or, rather, from his colleague the Minister of State, who is in charge of education—I may raise it in the House again. My constituent received the following communication from the Social Security Agency:
Regarding your letter concerning your daughter's … claim for Income Support from September 1992 and October 1993. The Senior Adjudication Officer has informed us that the judgement in the Clarke and Faul case was not followed in Northern Ireland. The decisions of the Higher Courts in England and Scotland are not binding in Northern Ireland. The Adjudication Officer has looked at your daughter's case again and has decided that there was no error of law. and therefore there are no grounds for review in this case.
That is remarkable. The famous Clarke and Faul case was brought by the students union when two students in Great Britain were refused income support. The Library tells me that they fought their case all the way to the Court of Appeal, where three Lord Justices were divided on the issue. Two said that the students were entitled to income support, and dismissed the case. The students received their money. It appeared that any students who were refused income support would henceforth be entitled to it.
The Government, however, knew perfectly well that they had made a mistake in their original legislation. They then introduced regulations that reversed the Court of Appeal's decision by removing certain words from the legislation. The Government had a right to do that, but I feel that my young constituent—who has now left university, and whose parents had to support her during the year that she was out of university—had a perfectly sound case.
The Government may turn round and say that, because of a little loophole in the law, although income support is a United Kingdom benefit and although the person concerned lives in the United Kingdom, they will not grant it. The different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom must all have a case fought through—Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England. If such a case came to court either of those jurisdictions, the lawyers would immediately call in aid the decision of the highest English court, and would invariably win.
It strikes me as incredibly petty of the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland to say that, although the case was fought and won in England—and, presumably, many students in England benefited from it—they would not allow the same arrangement in Northern Ireland. It is scandalous. I think that the Minister should examine the position again, and should tell the senior adjudication

officer and his officials to exercise a bit of common sense and apply what happened in England to the students in Northern Ireland. He should also advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has been foolish enough to follow the Northern Ireland practice, to do the same. If we are one nation, we should treat all our young people in the same way in regard to income support and other social security benefits.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). For years there was all-party support for building a hospital on a green-field site in Coleraine, and I know that he led that campaign. As the health spokesperson for my party, for years I was involved in many meetings, as were the spokespeople for the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party. I am absolutely surprised that the contractors have not yet even been on site.
I should like to start my speech on a happy note, by thanking the Minister at the Department responsible for economic development and the Industrial Development Board for the fact that, as mentioned earlier, 400 jobs are to come to my constituency. The headquarters of F. G. Wilson Emerson Electric—an international concern—will expand in Larne and will also come to my constituency. The fact that an international company with worldwide markets is coming to west Belfast is a vote of confidence in our available and well-educated work force.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members mentioned the deprivation and league tables in their constituencies. I understand why they do that, but, once again, I—with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker)—must repeat that west Belfast and north Belfast contain the most deprived wards in Northern Ireland, and probably anywhere in these islands.
I certainly welcome the fact that F. G. Wilson Emerson Electric is coming to our area, and I fully appreciate that that was brought about by the good work and professionalism of the IDB, the Minister and the Department. Their work has also meant that Fujitsu and BCO Technology have recently come to us, and that there have been extensions to Mackeys International and to Deltaprint. Those developments are good news for West Belfast, a constituency in which the news, although about many other things—is not usually about jobs.
I should like to say one thing—this also concerns the hon. Member for Belfast, North—about the Department of the Environment. About three years ago, I was walking on the Shankill road with the Secretary of State. It was a very sunny afternoon, and he mentioned the beauty of the Belfast hills—which run around the periphery of north and west Belfast—to some of the local people. We have often approached the Department of the Environment, the Minister and his predecessors on the development of the hills. I believe that those at Making Belfast Work are considering the matter. Any development of the Belfast hills would be a tremendous asset to the city of Belfast and to the constituencies of west and north Belfast.
I should like to mention the LaSalle and St. Genevieve schools in my constituency. I fully appreciate that all hon. Members are concerned about their constituencies and their schools and about getting a proper financial


allocation, but the LaSalle school is one of the biggest secondary schools in the most deprived part of these islands. I shall not deal with the option that seems to have been accepted by the Government, but the difference between it and the option desired by the schools is £2.4 million. I appreciate that final decisions may not have been taken, and I again appeal to the Secretary of State and to Education Ministers to re-examine that matter.
I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said about the Department of Health and Social Services, but I am of course aware that health boards are suffering from a 3 per cent. reduction in their baseline funding. In the case of the Eastern health and social services board, the cut represents £13 million. That is a catastrophic cut, as it comes on top of reductions made in recent years because of capitation shifts. I appreciate that a new formula has been adopted and that the financial position of the board may improve.
In the meantime, however, I am very concerned about the long-term prospects for hospitals such as the Royal Victoria, which not only serves the city of Belfast—as do the City hospital and the Mater hospital—but is one of the main regional hospitals in the north of Ireland.
The time spent on waiting lists for hip-joint replacements at Musgrave Park is increasing. The hon. Member for Belfast, North and I have drawn the Minister's attention to that fact in the past few days.
I am deeply concerned that reduced funding for the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services trust will severely affect the most vulnerable group in our society—the elderly. I appreciate that the Minister has said that funding has increased, but what about the percentage of funding? In 1993, the trust received 27 per cent. of the Eastern health and social services board's allocation for services for the elderly. This year, the figure is 24 per cent., which is a difference of £2.5 million.
The immediate impact of that change in programme is a reduction in care and home help services of 1,450 hours per week. The Secretary of State has drawn attention time and again to targeting social need in the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland. West and north Belfast are at the top of that deprivation league. It does not make sense for the Secretary of State to State to refer continually to targeting social need when services for the elderly are being cut.
It is common knowledge in Belfast, although there has been no official announcement, that Shankill house, a home for the elderly, is under threat of closure. Grove Tree house, on the Falls road, is also under threat. That is just not good enough. There will be a loss of jobs, but what happens to those elderly people is a matter of even greater importance.
On the matter of trust funding, I drew the Minister's attention to how moneys were allocated by the Eastern health and social services board according to a formula, which meant that proper funding was not going to the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services trust. Elderly age distributions are broken down into 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85-plus. But populations in deprived areas are unlikely to live as long as those in better areas.
I have no doubt that people in Bangor, for example, live longer than those in north and west Belfast. Many people go to Bangor and similar places to retire, but they do not live as long as they do in other areas. Those who

work out the formula do not seem to appreciate that people in the age group of 74 or 75 to 84 suffer much more ill health than do those in other groups. I draw the Minister's attention to that problem.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has emphasised deprivation and the restrictions on resources in caring for the aged. Does he share my concern about problems in north and west Belfast in caring for children, because of cuts, not replacing staff and pressure on social workers who deal specifically with child abuse—of which there has been a high percentage in that area?

Dr. Hendron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He and I could talk for nearly a week on sexual abuse and deprivation, which are extremely important subjects.
I have already referred the subject of my next comments to the Minister. A report is to be issued in the next 10 days. About three years ago, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and I approached the then Minister about deprivation in west and north Belfast. As a result, an economic working group was set up with the support of the Government. A report was commissioned by either the Industrial Development Board or Making Belfast Work. The report has been sitting on someone's desk for the past six months—I understand that it is not on the Minister's desk but somewhere at the IDB. Why has the report not been published? Perhaps there will be many red faces when the facts are known, because it will be appreciated just how minimal the funding or the allocation of resources for north and west Belfast is.
I have here a summary of the report. This is not the time to go into detail, but one of its recommendations is that there should be a strategy for north and west Belfast. A few months ago, I put to the Minister at the Department for Economic Development the case for some sort of strategy and co-ordination for the whole area. We have Making Belfast Work, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the IDB and Phoenix, all of which are doing good work in their own way, but there is no co-ordination or overall strategy. I asked that someone be appointed as overall co-ordinator. I do not care who that person is or where he comes from as long as there is some co-ordination. I ask the Minister again to study the report carefully in the hope that some strategy can be worked out for west and north Belfast.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): As usual on such occasions, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall try to answer as many questions as I can—it says here "in the time available", but I understand that some hon. Members are pressed for time and may have to leave. In the time-honoured tradition of junior Ministers when they wind up, I shall be writing to hon. Members about matters that I cannot answer directly now.
I begin with a few words on the general economic outlook in Northern Ireland. The latest figures show that the Northern Ireland economy has grown relatively faster than the national economy. Over the year to March 1996, the seasonally adjusted number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland rose by 1.6 per cent. to 576,010. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in


eight of the past 12 months and, at May 1996 stood at 85,600, or 11.1 per cent. of the work force. However, that is a decrease of 2,700 on May 1995.
Public expenditure in Northern Ireland in the financial year 1996–97 will be in excess of £8 billion. That is equivalent to almost £5,000 for every man, woman and child. It is a clear indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the provision of a wide range of high-quality public services for the people of Northern Ireland and it includes an extra £25 million for industrial development.
The IDB has reported its best ever net jobs gain for a 12-month period since statistics have been recorded. Net employment in IDB client companies increased by more than 1,600. The underlying strong growth in client companies is further reflected in the fact that in the period April 1995 to March 1996, the IDB attracted record inward investment totalling £432 million, with a significant number of new companies choosing to locate in or adjacent to disadvantaged areas.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the possibility of encouraging IDB inward investment into their own constituencies. Clearly, the policy will be to spread it as widely as possible to make sure that disadvantaged areas get their fair share. However, the IDB does not direct companies; it can only give guidance. If we had more gross investment, we could no doubt spread it more evenly across Northern Ireland.
I was interested to learn that Cookstown, which is a deprived area, is to benefit from significant inward investment. It brought a smile to my face, because I am told repeatedly that investors will not invest in locations that do not have excellent road communications and motorways, but Cookstown is in the middle of the Province, and one could not say that it has the best road communications of any town in the Province.

Mr. William Ross: With the greatest respect, there is a perfectly good road from the main east-west routes down to Cookstown.

Mr. Moss: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman shares that information with the hon. Member who represents Cookstown, who is always telling me that the roads are not adequate.
There was also significant growth in tourism last year. Total visitor spend exceeded £200 million in 1995 and will see an extra £3 million increase over the next three years.
Inward investors who have located in Northern Ireland have specifically complimented the road system, telecommunications and the potential to create links between industry and the universities. In terms of location advantages, they found Northern Ireland operating costs to be significantly lower than anticipated, even when electricity and transport costs are included.
I deal now with some specific questions and start with those asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)—the Opposition spokesman—who mentioned BSE. His questions were mirrored by those from other hon. Members. The first question related to young bulls. The problem that he highlighted is unique to Northern Ireland. There is a special problem, because

some 6,000 young bulls on 200 farms are intended for a specific market—the Dutch market. I am delighted that last Friday the Government announced a scheme to slaughter those animals and compensate their owners. I believe that the scheme was widely welcomed. It is essential that the animals are slaughtered as quickly as possible, and I hope that we can rely on the patience and co-operation of farmers to ensure that the scheme runs smoothly. However, I take on board the comments made today, and they will be passed on.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and others mentioned the problem of possible reductions in compensation payments, especially for steers and heifers. I shall certainly pass on their concern to Baroness Denton, and I assure the House that she will be using her influence to mitigate any possible reductions in compensation levels.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and others also raised the question of special status for Northern Ireland. The European Union ban applies to the whole of the United Kingdom beef industry. The Government's principal objective is to have the ban lifted in its entirety, and all our efforts are being concentrated on that objective. From evidence provided not only this evening but on other occasions, we know that the Northern Ireland beef industry enjoys a very special reputation and is organised in a unique way. We are confident that once the ban is lifted, Northern Ireland will meet any requirements and perhaps meet them in a short time scale.
The Opposition spokesman also mentioned electricity prices in Northern Ireland. It is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than in most regions of Great Britain, because our power stations are smaller, the spinning reserve margin is higher and customers are on average more dispersed. The most effective way to keep energy costs down is through the promotion of competition and the pursuit of efficiency in production transmission and the use of electricity. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government are providing £60 million over three years from April 1996 to assist Northern Ireland customers. The Government will continue to encourage both efficiency and competition.
The Director General of Electricity Supply is currently engaged in the first electricity price controls review since privatisation and his proposals will take effect from 1 April 1997. In January this year, he published a consultation paper on the introduction of greater competition and consumer choice in the electricity market in Northern Ireland, and he plans shortly to issue a further paper outlining his definitive proposals. It is for the director general and not the Government to consider a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as requested by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the fire authority. I suspect that he was referring to the funding of a new command and control system for the Northern Ireland fire brigade which was flagged up in a newspaper recently. Fire authority funding in Northern Ireland has increased from £16 million in 1985–86, to £32 million in 1991, to more than £42 million for the coming year. I am satisfied that the fire authority has sufficient resources to provide a new command and control system and that there is no threat to the ability of Northern Ireland's fire brigades to respond to fire calls.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and almost every other hon. Member who has spoken tonight mentioned health funding. I recognise that there are some difficulties, but we should consider them in the context of the overall Northern Ireland block.
The Government have increased the resources available to health and personal social services next year to some £1,580 million. That represents a real—terms increase, thus honouring the Government's commitment to give real increases to the health service. That pledge was made at Cabinet level and certainly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It represents a real—terms increase of 0.8 per cent. on 1995–96. As we spent more last year, the increase was only 0.2 per cent. in real terms, but that must be considered in the context of an impressive 57 per cent. real—terms increase since 1979–80.
That settlement included a requirement from the Department of Finance and Personnel to the health service to find 3 per cent. efficiency savings. I discussed that with all the trusts and boards, and we concluded that it would be extremely difficult to find 3 per cent. efficiency savings, but that savings of 1.5 per cent. were possible. Instead of being prescriptive, we agreed to guidelines of 1.5 per cent. efficiency savings and 1.5 per cent. cuts in services. Although we have not yet finalised all contracting, some boards have managed 2 per cent. efficiency savings—more than the anticipated 1.5 per cent.
I have allowed the boards and trusts to remain flexible. To a certain extent, I am pleased with the way in which they have addressed their problems. I do not yet have all the final contracting. Once I have that—and I am pressing boards and trusts to reach a final resolution—I intend to meet them to review the position.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) referred to in-year money. I am flattered that he assumes that I can secure any, but the man responsible—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—is not too far away. Perhaps some pleadings should be addressed in his direction, but we shall be considering the overall position and preparing our case for next year, as next year's public expenditure round is about to start. We shall have information relating to the impact on this year and our plans for next year.
I should also point out that there has been real growth in certain services. Additional resources have been provided, including £2 million for renal services, particularly dialysis, just under £1 million for additional drugs for cancer patients and £1.1 million for neurology. I have allocated money to the proper implementation of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995—a matter that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has raised with me previously. We also included in the budget this year an extra £12 million for community care.
When we came to decide where cuts should fall, we decided on elective surgery, as we cannot limit accident and emergency admissions and we cannot touch the family health service or the GP service. Nor can we reduce the drugs bill. We have to address the drugs problem in Northern Ireland. There has been exponential growth in the drugs budget, so I have to allow a contingency reserve of what might be required, as I cannot allow that budget not to be met in the financial year. We are holding back a great deal of money, which I want to

release to front-line health care, if I can get assistance from GPs and the public at large on the exponential growth of the drugs budget.
The average cost of prescriptions per head of population in Northern Ireland is £98 compared with £68 in Great Britain. It has been said that we should not compare cost-per-head figures and expenditure in Northern Ireland with those in Great Britain. I am prepared to accept that there are differences, as there are certainly areas of severe deprivation in Northern Ireland where we would expect to spend more on health services, including drugs, but I am not sure that I agree that a differential of £98 to £68 is acceptable or reasonable. Any money that we save on drugs can go back into front-line health care.

Mr. Jim Dowd: The Minister mentioned the difficulty of comparisons between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He admitted that there will be cuts in health service provision in Northern Ireland. That stands in stark contrast to his counterparts in the Department of Health, who resolutely refuse to admit to that. Apart from his obvious greater honesty and candour, what is the reason for that distinction?

Mr. Moss: There is a distinction primarily on the basis that we spend far more on health per head of population in Northern Ireland than we do in Great Britain, although spending in Scotland is high. There is a differential of 14 to 15 per cent. in spend per head of population. Northern Ireland obviously has a high cost base that needs addressing in one way or another. In the rest of the United Kingdom, there probably would be 10 district general hospitals per 1.5 million head of population; in Northern Ireland we have 19. I am not saying that we should get rid of nine—I hope that that will not be tomorrow's headline—but we have to look carefully at the number of hospitals and what they do.
There is a higher cost base, which needs to be addressed in the medium term, but short-term measures are difficult. Earlier this evening, attention was drawn to the fact that 3 per cent. cash-releasing savings is different from what has been asked of the health service in England and Wales—and, I believe, in Scotland. I met the boards and trusts, to try to establish a way forward that would help to minimise the effects of cuts in some activities. We selected elective surgery because it would also affect the fundholder budgets that are used to purchase elective surgery.
In the past few years, Northern Ireland has had an excellent record of increasing the throughput of in-patients, out-patients and day surgery. Our waiting lists are extremely low in most activities, and I do not believe that the impact of the cuts will be as draconian or dramatic as people claim. Until I get the full list of contracts, I cannot review the position, but I intend to do so very quickly.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In respect of the drugs budget, how far has the Department proceeded with the pay review? Is there a disparity in drug prescription in particular areas or by individual doctors? I am not suggesting that we should save money by reducing the


prescription of modern, expensive drugs, which ultimately might prove cheaper, but I believe that there is a disparity in prescription.

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a disparity, and we have statistics on it, but it is a different matter from publishing a list of what individual GP practices prescribe. We have had some considerable success in reducing the drugs budget through our fundholding GP practices. We want non-GP fundholders to try to emulate that success. We shall be launching a campaign in the near future. I have not yet brought all the strands together, but I am looking carefully at the matter, and making inroads into it is a major plank of our policy over the next year. I shall certainly consider any specific suggestions that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may make to me.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the funding of two schools in his constituency, and I shall certainly convey that information to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
I was somewhat surprised that the South-East education and library board, to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also referred, had not yet replied to a letter of 5 March. I find that very strange and will certainly take up the matter.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the statement that has been made—he mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think that the statement has also been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Certain key services—the health service and education—were particularly mentioned. I can speak this evening only on the health service. The health service has been protected in so far as we have given it a real—terms increase this year.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) also raised health issues. He referred to the capitation formula, on which a moratorium is being conducted at the moment. When he and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) came to see me, I said that the Eastern board had begun a moratorium, and we are looking at that again. It is true that finding a capitation formula that is acceptable to all is extremely difficult. However, we believe that we have built deprivation factors into our formula—for distribution not only to community trusts but to boards. It is difficult to arrive at a formula that meets everyone's approval. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North for his comments on the strengthening of the Housing Executive's role, especially in a strategic sense, and I endorse the importance of housing not only to his constituents but to those of every hon. Member in Northern Ireland.
The issue of grants came up at Question Time this afternoon, and I accepted that there had been some delays, especially for disabled people. That is because of the lack of occupational therapists. We are addressing that and hope to bring it into line in the very near future. The amount of money allocated for grants has increased year by year. There has been a £3 million increase—I think—this year to £47 million. The problem of mandatory

repairs grants that were eating into the total budget has been addressed, and we have reduced the maximum amount available to £500. That should make quite a difference.
The hon. Member for South Down raised the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development. It is true that the capital grant elements of that scheme were suspended from 24 March 1995 because, as he noted, commitments to applicants risked outstripping the available financial resources. A decision about reopening the scheme will not be made until an assessment of funds required to finance the applications received has been made. We shall take stock at that time.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to fishing. We agree that the European Union proposals are unacceptable at this juncture. We accept the view that the assessments of over-fishing in the Irish sea are probably wrong. I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Denton, together with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be arguing the British case very strongly in European meetings.
The hon. Member for South Down again mentioned theory test centres. I have written to him and said that we are starting off with—I think—six test centres, but I shall review the position at the half-year point. Essentially, we are trying to keep the costs of the tests down. We have calculated that every extra test centre might cost us £55,000 a year, which would put £1 or £2 on each candidate's test. I heard what he said about £35 for the hire of an educational establishment in Downpatrick. Obviously, I shall have to check that out with the usual sources.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the bad publicity about theatre closures at the Royal Victoria hospital. I was pleased to have his support on the fact that at least some such closures happen every year, but are just not publicised. Doctors and nurses have to take a holiday. August is a holiday time in any case, and the number of people admitted to hospital in that month drops dramatically. The information is not new, but I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the Government's position. I shall refer the issue of Tyrella school to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South also made a plea for investment in south Belfast. That will be passed on accordingly, but it should be borne in mind that every hon. Member who speaks for Northern Ireland makes a personal plea for his constituency. I am not aware of any problems with Sports Council funding, so I cannot comment this evening, but I shall look into it for him.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised the issue of fluoridation. It is true that the four boards have formally requested that I consider introducing fluoridation in Northern Ireland. They are tasked with conducting a thorough and adequate consultation, not only with the public at large but with district councils, and they must take those views into account. It is common knowledge that, if the consultation process has not been as thorough and proper as it should have been, the boards could lay themselves open to judicial review. I have not seen their request, but I shall be looking at it fairly soon. The important thing is that they consult properly in their areas. I have to balance—as indeed they do—the points made for fluoridation against the general thrust of their policy, to look after the health and well-being of their populations.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about a pay increase that was due in May and has not yet been received. I shall look into that, but it surprises me. Last year, we agreed the full 3 per cent. pay increase for nurses. As far as I was concerned, that was financed by the boards and trusts. The proposal made by the pay review body this year is for a 2 per cent. increase for nurses. The proposed increase for doctors was higher. We are in negotiations on where we go from that 2 per cent. baseline, but we are not in a position to make any announcements at this stage.
I should be happy to welcome any deputation that the hon. Member for East Londonderry would care to bring from the Coleraine area, on cancer services at the new Causeway hospital. Contractors are on the site, and it has been cleared. We are about to go out to tender, but we are conducting one final financial assessment before we lay the first stone. I am convinced that that assessment will be through in the near future.

Sir James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) apologises for having to leave to catch a flight.

Mr. Moss: I had noticed that he had gone, but I did not refer to it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comment.
The subject of asbestos cement pipes was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry and by a number of hon. Members who represent the Belfast area. I hope to make an announcement on that very soon. My Department has received a report from the water research centre. We are looking at it very carefully and hope to make an announcement in the near future, at which time the report will be made available in the Library. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter of income support for a student in his constituency.
Finally—I do not think that I have missed out any hon. Members—the hon. Member for Belfast, West spoke of the Belfast hills. The Department of the Environment is anxious that we should have a policy on the hills because

they are—I would not say that they are a hidden asset, because one cannot miss them—a unique asset and much under-utilised by people in Belfast. I shall refer back his question about the LaSalle and St. Genevieve schools. The hon. Gentleman asked for a little extra money, but I believe that the capital programme for both of them has already been more or less agreed.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of home closures. I can assure him, and the hon. Member for Belfast, North, who also raised the matter, that those are not related to the present economies. The closure of statutory homes takes place because, although we need sufficient beds in the public and private sectors to accommodate those who need residential and nursing home care, the emphasis now is on care in the community, with people being looked after in their own homes. So we do not need so many beds in either the statutory or the independent private sector. We are simply rationalising the provision to ensure that we have sufficient beds, with a mixed provision of care across the two sectors—or rather, across the three sectors. I have not mentioned the voluntary sector, which is also important.
I have not seen the paper on the economic position in north and west Belfast. The hon. Gentleman held up a copy, and if he would like to give it to me afterwards, I shall take it away and consider it. We can liaise with the IDB in that respect, because we are interested in finding a sensible way of measuring deprivation, not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but throughout Northern Ireland, so that funding in, say, the health service, can be targeted under the heading of social need for those key areas in our overall policy.
I have answered as best I can most of the questions that have been raised, and I shall write to hon. Members about those that I have not answered. I commend the appropriation order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

Crown Office (Gavin McGuire Case)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to air problems of great concern not only to my constituents, but to people throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have a sad story to tell.
A young constituent of mine, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl innocently making her way home from a pantomime just before Christmas last year, was set upon by a vile pervert, a man who hated women, who preyed upon defenceless women and was violent in the extreme. He subjected her to torture and sexual assault and then murdered her. As with all crimes of violence and every tragic loss of a young life, the people of Kilmarnock were—and remain—shocked and distressed. I am sure that the House will have great sympathy for Mhairi, for her parents, the rest of her family and her friends.
What sets this hideous crime apart from many others is the fact that the perpetrator, Gavin McGuire, had been allowed to return time and again to the community, sometimes committing the same types of crime for which he had been committed to prison, but sometimes committing even worse crimes. That fact poses a number of questions that my hon. Friends and I believe require a full and independent inquiry in public.
We must ask the following questions. What treatment did McGuire undergo while in prison? What assessment was made of any such treatment? Why were police and social services not alerted when he was released from prison? What procedures are in place to oversee the behaviour of sex offenders, especially those who have shown violence, to try to prevent recidivism?
Last week, I visited the Lord Advocate, Lord MacKay of Drumadoon, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Paul Cullen, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who is with me in the Chamber tonight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), our Front-Bench spokesman. We were seeking an independent public inquiry, which all right-minded believe is now imperative.
We were promised an inquiry, but it will not be held in public; it will be carried out internally by the Crown Office. Although that is better than nothing, it can in no way replace the fullest of inquiries, whose participants would come from outside the Crown Office system. An independent public inquiry would provide a fresh view and a comprehensive study in order to make recommendations that might prevent a known vicious serial rapist such as Gavin McGuire from ever being free to terrorise, to mutilate and to kill again.
It is important that the House be made aware of the evil within that man, which spiralled over the years and appears to have gone unchecked, other than during his periods of incarceration. It is said that Gavin McGuire was always a loner, an outsider with few social skills and unable to make close relationships. He was the eldest of three sons of a working-class family in Stevenston in Ayrshire. His father was made redundant when Gavin was a child and seems to have spent a lot of his time drinking and gambling, leaving the three brothers to fend for themselves.
McGuire's parents separated when he was young, and he first went into care at the age of eight—that sounds like something out of Charles Dickens, but it is not. During his 25-year career of crime, and even before, since the age of eight, he had done time in every form of institution—assessment centre, borstal, list D school, young offenders institution and eventually prison, including the top security Peterhead gaol, where he shared segregation with some of Scotland's worst sex offenders.
In 1976, McGuire was arrested for assaulting three young women in Stevenston, one of whom he sexually attacked. In each of those cases either the victim fought him off or he was disturbed by a passer-by. The first attack took place five months after he left the list D school.
McGuire's first victim was a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Auchenharvie academy. He knocked her to the ground, punched her in the face and bit her nose before her screams alerted help, and he ran off. In the second attack, a 15-year-old holidaymaker was dragged on to a patch of waste ground, where he punched her repeatedly and dragged her by the hair before sexually assaulting her. Again, he ran off when passers by came to her aid. The third victim in McGuire's first phase was attacked just two days later, when he pushed an 18-year-old girl against a wall, but she escaped after hitting him with her shopping bag.
I relate those details to demonstrate that even early in his perverted career, McGuire showed no mercy and no restraint towards the women he attacked. In fact, in all three of those cases, only good fortune prevented even more serious harm.
When McGuire initially came to court in Kilmarnock, the sheriff court—rightly in my opinion—refused bail, but bail of £10 was granted on appeal to the High Court. While out on that £10 bail the following month, he assaulted a pregnant woman, kicking her to the ground, and robbed the garage in which she had been working. He also robbed another garage.
One week later, he followed a woman, grabbed her and tried to pull her to the ground, but she ran off when a car approached. Later the same day, he held a piece of glass at the throat of a 23-year-old woman whom he had grabbed in a shopping arcade. He dragged her behind a store, stripped her and raped her.
When McGuire finally came to court, he admitted eight charges, including rape, serious assault with sexual intent, assault and robbery, theft of a motor car and theft of money. For those offences he was sentenced to 10 years in a young offenders institution. His Member of Parliament at that time, John Corrie, demanded an inquiry to discover why he had been bailed for the first three offences, which had left him free to carry out further vicious attacks—but Corrie had no success in bringing about an inquiry. More is the pity.
McGuire was released on licence seven years later. Within months, that monster subjected a holidaymaker in Saltcoats, Ayrshire, to a terrifying three-hour ordeal in the dead of night. He brutally attacked, beat and raped her, then threw her into Saltcoats harbour. I do not believe that his intention was other than murder, but the murder charge was dropped, although he had watched the woman floating in the harbour for some time. During that time she feigned unconsciousness and kept herself afloat until he left the scene. She then swam for the shore and for


help. It was stated in court that had she not been a good swimmer she would not have not survived that hellish ordeal.
Despite his obvious intent, the charge against McGuire was reduced from attempted murder and rape to assault and rape, for which he was sentenced in August 1986, again for a period of 10 years. The presiding judge, Lord Dunpark, in sentencing McGuire, described him
as a menace to society, and particularly to women.
Again he was released on licence after having served part of his 10-year sentence, and again he preyed on vulnerable women soon after his release.
The next victim we know about was a young woman who was set upon by McGuire. When defending herself, she bit his finger very hard and drew a lot of blood. She alerted the police, and drew their attention to the fact that she had injured him. He was arrested eight days later after the victim recognised him in the street. He appeared at Kilmarnock sheriff court on 21 August 1995 on a charge of assault with intent to rape and robbery. He was remanded in custody while the police and the procurator fiscal investigated.
On 28 November 1995, McGuire was liberated by the Crown on the ground that there was insufficient evidence in law to provide corroboration, which is required by Scots law. Nineteen days later he murdered Mhairi Julyan.
It was necessary to go over this man's offences—at least those that we know of—in some detail to demonstrate not only his evil intent, but the continuing nature of his crimes. For at least 20 years, he has been raping and brutalising women whenever he gets the chance. It is only very good fortune for the woman concerned that he was not facing a murder charge in 1986. Indeed, that might even be said of the other women he abused who escaped when he was disturbed. He showed no humanity to his victims, and his disregard led to escalating violence that culminated in the death of Mhairi Julyan. Forty-seven different injuries were found on this lovely young girl's body, the combination of which led to her death.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland believes that he has found a solution. "Two strikes and you're out," I think it is called. That is to say two sex offences and then prison for life, but is that really an acceptable solution? I believe it is a knee-jerk reaction of a Secretary of State backed into a corner because of criticisms of our system of justice in Scotland. The policy has not been thought out, nor has it been tested on the many strong and able legal minds in Scotland. Many organisations in the penal system are likely to have strong opinions which may be of use, and psychiatrists and others may be able to provide a much better and less wasteful solution at an early stage.
It is for that reason that my colleagues and I are again calling on the Government to set up an independent public inquiry. As well as looking at the particular circumstances of this horrific case, it could include changes that add any remission to later sentences. I believe that it is essential that the inquiry investigates the treatment of offenders and makes the compulsory completion of psychological treatment and assessment of the possibility of recidivism the main criteria for release, thus bringing about a stark change in sentencing policy for sex and violent offenders.
I am also convinced, as are my colleagues, that an inquiry must look at the law of evidence in Scottish courts regarding sex offences with a view to abolishing the

mandatory requirement on the prosecution to provide corroborative evidence before a case can proceed. The tragic consequences of that requirement protected McGuire from prosecution and led to his liberation on 28 November last year. He was then free to go out and murder just 19 days later.
I would like a public inquiry to examine the possibility of introducing instead a discretionary power for judges to warn a jury in summing up about the lack of corroboration when there are no witnesses other than the victim. That should provide protection against malicious accusations, and it would bring Scots law in line with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Without such a change, women remain very vulnerable. Other offenders may be liberated—just as Gavin McGuire was, time after time—only to re-offend, perhaps with equally awful consequences.
I look forward to the Minister's response to these accusations. Without a full public inquiry, we will never be convinced that the last evil murder of this man could not have been avoided. Although we await the results of the internal inquiry in the Lord Advocate's office, we feel that such an internal inquiry will not provide the answers.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I intend to be brief to allow the Minister ample opportunity to reply to the many questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has asked. My interest in the case is that Gavin McGuire is my constituent. That is no great distinction, and it is sad that I find myself speaking as the hon. Member who represents a man who has caused so much grief.
This debate is particularly significant for Ayrshire, as other important factors have still to come to the surface. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the important points, but they must be reinforced. The case demonstrates the complete and utter shambles in the Crown Office and the judicial system. I want to examine some areas of concern. First, the case has clearly demonstrated that there is a problem with resources. Secondly, constituents who have seen me in the past few weeks have suggested that they no longer have confidence in the system in Scotland.
We must consider resources, and what went on in the office of the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock and in the Crown Office. When we realise that evidence that clearly demonstrated that this man should never have been allowed out so that he was able to murder that young girl was available in the procurator fiscal's office, we get angry at the inability of those responsible to hold him in remand and prosecute him to ensure that he was not in society. We are all aware of the lack of resources. On the basis of what he has learnt about the case, will the Minister—as the Minister responsible for the matter—recommend that additional resources be made available to the procurator fiscal's department and to the Crown Office?
The Government tell us that they are hard on crime. They have had 17 years to show us that. This significant case shows that their hardness on crime does not work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned the meeting that we had with the Lord Advocate, where we were promised an internal inquiry. While that signifies some success, it clearly is not


what we were looking for. The public need answers. They need to know what went wrong. The most important thing tonight is for the Minister to agree at some point to an independent public inquiry, and that is what we are looking for.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on securing an Adjournment debate on this anxious topic. He has raised some questions about the case of Gavin McGuire and I intend to answer them as fully as possible. I first place on record my sympathy for the parents and family of Mhairi Julyan. The death of a teenager is always tragic; how much more so is the callous murder of a young person with everything to live for. It leaves in its wake, as the hon. Gentleman said, shock and distress.
Of one thing there is no doubt. McGuire is a man who presents a considerable danger to women. In February 1977, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for two charges of rape, a charge of assault with intent to ravish and other offences. On 12 November 1986, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for attempted rape and serious assault. The sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum recommendation of 30 years that was imposed by Lord Clyde on 30 May, is the best protection that women can have against such a predatory criminal.
The House knows that in the light of McGuire case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week proposals that would require the courts to impose a life sentence, other than in exceptional circumstances, where an offender is convicted of a second offence involving serious violence or sexual assault. That would mean that the judge would still set the minimum time that the offender is to spend in prison, but by making a minimum recommendation rather than by imposing a determinate sentence.
Thereafter, the benefits of the life sentence become apparent, in that the parole board will then consider whether the offender can safely be released. If after release his behaviour gives any cause for concern, he can be immediately recalled to prison to continue serving his life sentence. If a determinate rather than a life sentence is imposed, release back into the community is automatic after a certain date, no matter how much of a risk to the public the prisoner might still pose, and there is no possibility of immediate recall to prison if his actions should give rise for concern.
Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has also raised the issue. He wrote:
In McGuire's case, such a provision would have meant that he would have been given a life sentence on his second conviction in 1986, and his subsequent release would only have occurred when he had served the full period determined by the judge and the Parole Board had concluded that he could be safely released. If he had been released and there was thereafter concern about his behaviour, whether or not this involved committing an offence, he could have been returned immediately to custody.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to announce his proposals on "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime" shortly. Meanwhile, he expects to be able to count on the support of Opposition Members for that change.

Mr. McKelvey: While we understand what the Minister is saying, we are concerned about what we have described as a knee-jerk reaction. How much did the Secretary of State discuss the matter with interested parties such as the judiciary and those who work in the legal system? How much support does he have for pursuing that change and establishing it rapidly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Judges are always consulted before legislation goes through Parliament. We are not yet at the stage of putting a Bill before Parliament, but when proposals are published, judges will be consulted, just like everyone else. However, we are determined to ensure that there should be more emphasis on the concerns of the victim rather than on the criminal. I hope that the Opposition will support that.

Mr. McKelvey: This important issue is at the nub of the reasons why we want a full inquiry. There is a case to answer. This man was incarcerated and made a ward of the state at the age of eight. He has already spent 14 years of his adult life in prison. We are concerned about what was done with him while he was in prison. Has he been psychologically examined? Was there such a programme? If there was, how did he respond to it? If a full inquiry gave us those answers, the conditions that could be set by law to improve the position might be more readily agreed.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman takes me off the thread of my remarks, but I shall deal with his question about the treatment of sex offenders in prison. I will happily make inquiries because prisoners come under my responsibility. I shall write to him in due course.
It is important that sex offenders are given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour while in prison. That is why many long-term prisoners convicted of sex offences are held in Peterhead prison. Grouping them together has made it possible to develop a comprehensive sex offender treatment programme there. It is widely recognised that such programmes are likely to be successful only to the extent that they engage the co-operation of the offender.
Programmes have been set up in several Scots prisons, including Barlinnie, where emphasis is placed on helping perpetrators to recognise and control the triggers that prompt offending behaviour. An important aspect of the programme is that counselling is also offered to those released back into the community through support groups run by the city of Glasgow social work department. The aims of sex offender treatment programmes are to get prisoners to accept their personal responsibility, for them to address the consequences of offending behaviour for the offender and for victims, and to develop self-corneal strategies and avoid situations likely to lead to re-offending.
The stop programme in Peterhead has recently undergone an external evaluation. The programme was viewed positively, with participants demonstrating


increased victim awareness. In the light of that report and other recent research, the Scottish Prison Service is developing guidance on the management of sex offenders in prison. Those who co-operate in addressing their offending behaviour may be allowed controlled access to a range of opportunities in other establishments to prepare them further for eventual release and may be considered by the parole board for release on licence. Prisoners who choose not to address their offending behaviour are unlikely to be considered for early release. Sex offenders released on licence are required to maintain contact with their supervising officer and must observe the conditions of the licence. Failure to do so could be grounds for recalling the offender to prison. Those requirements are intended to reduce the likelihood of the offender being involved in further offences.

Mr. Donohoe: The Minister should give us a specific answer. Did McGuire go through that programme?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is the programme now in place. The hon. Gentleman's question is historical. I will make inquiries and write to him and to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in due course. I shall move on to less historical, more immediate issues.
When my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate exercises his duty as public prosecutor, he acts independently of Government. He is accountable to Parliament and it is as his spokesman that I am replying tonight. I can advise the House on his behalf that he and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will examine the history of the case with the Advocate Deputes and the procurator fiscal respectively.
I should explain what cannot be done and, more importantly, what can be done. Hon. Members asked whether a public inquiry would be the best way forward. I do not believe that it would because a public inquiry into the process of decision-making by the Lord Advocate and his deputies would violate the principle of the independence of public prosecution. The constitutional position of the public prosecutor was explained to the House by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, in 1959, in a statement concerning the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry in the Waters case. He said:
It is an established principle of Government in this country, and a tradition long supported by all political parties, that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter where a public as opposed to a private prosecution is concerned, for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure.
It would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour … In reaching his decisions the Lord Advocate's duty in Scotland, like the Attorney-General's in England, is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity".—[Official Report, 16 February 1959; Vol. 600, c. 31.]
Prosecutors need to assess not only the sufficiency but the quality of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. If prosecutors' decisions could be explored publicly, the temptation would be to prosecute regardless of the outcome—because the easy decision is always to prosecute—and cases could unnecessarily or inappropriately be brought to court. That is not necessarily in the best public interest.
While I do not see a public inquiry as the best way forward, there are other ways forward and I should like to go into them. I mentioned the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which would meet the situation. They would mean that someone convicted a second time of a very serious sex offence of this nature would attract a life sentence and would then be subject to a much longer sentence.

Mr. Donohoe: That is clearly important. I do not know if the Minister heard one of the experts in Scottish law dispute that fact. He said that, instead of raping and leaving a woman, someone who had already offended would be more likely on the second occasion not only to rape but to murder.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but fear of detection has often been a source of the most devastating crimes. Fear of detection is always with criminals in all circumstances. We believe that if we impose a life sentence on a second serious sexual crime, which could amount to attempted murder or rape, the person who has committed it will be subject to much stronger control and a much longer sentence than is now possible. I look forward to the hon. Members' support for that proposal in due course.
I mentioned the other ways forward. First, a working group chaired by a regional procurator fiscal completed a full review last year of the way in which the procurator fiscal service investigates and prepares serious cases and this has resulted in detailed guidance in the form of a handbook which has been issued to all relevant staff. Procurators fiscal are encouraged to take an active involvement in the preparation of all serious cases. That is a particular feature of the Scottish prosecution system. Full details of the examination of the case of Gavin McGuire will be passed on to the working group for its consideration as part of its work of promoting good practice.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland chaired a separate working group which reported earlier this year on the role and recruitment of advocate deputes who prosecute and take decisions on criminal proceedings in the High Court. As a result, a number of changes in working arrangements are already being implemented with a view to giving them more time to consider cases at an earlier stage, but account will be taken of the results of the process of examination which I have mentioned.
It is appropriate that I should, with the Lord Advocate's agreement, set out in some detail the background to the decision which was taken to release McGuire from custody before his trial last November.
On 12 August 1995, Lorna Andrew was assaulted in a public park in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, by a man who forced her to the ground and attempted to remove her clothing. She reported that in the course of the struggle she had bitten her attacker's left index finger. Initial inquiries by the police did not identify her attacker, who ran away.
Eight days later, on 20 August, Lorna Andrew saw Gavin McGuire by chance in the street and identified him as her attacker. She informed the police and McGuire was apprehended and examined by a casualty surgeon, who found a small injury on the nail side of his left index finger. McGuire's explanation was that he had injured his finger while sawing tree branches on 17 August. The


casualty surgeon was of the view that the injury could have been caused by a tooth. McGuire appeared in court on 21 August 1995 and was remanded in custody.
In Scots criminal law it is essential for proof of a charge that the accused is identified as the perpetrator of the crime by corroborated evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. Corroboration means confirmation or support of one piece of evidence by another piece of evidence, each from a source independent of the other. The corroboration rule is regarded as a fundamental protection against wrongful conviction, and one which has thus reduced the risk of miscarriages of justice in Scotland.
In Scotland it is not possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions for similar crimes in order to prove a case, although I understand that this can be possible in England and Wales in cases of exceptional similarity under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence.

Mr. McKelvey: We should clear up the matter of the medical evidence. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General told me and my hon. Friends that the examining surgeon believed that the wound on McGuire's finger was less than 72 hours old. That was the reason why the authorities felt that they could not proceed with the case. The attack took place eight days before the examination. It is also worth seeking an explanation of why the assault and attempted rape were lumped in with the murder case in an attempt to try two cases together, when further medical examination had apparently been sought.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who has shown a great interest in the subject. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked whether the doctrine of corroboration was appropriate. I mentioned a moment ago that in England and Wales, in cases of exceptional similarity, under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence, it is possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions.
We will be studying the law of corroboration in general in the light of the recommendations of the Sutherland committee. The importance of the corroboration rule has been emphasised in the report of the committee on criminal appeals and miscarriages of justice procedures chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, which was published on Monday.
In the case against Gavin McGuire, Lorna Andrew's evidence was one piece of evidence identifying McGuire as the man who attacked her. The casualty surgeon's evidence was that the injury to McGuire's finger could have been anything up to 72 hours old, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said a moment ago.
The medical evidence was therefore inconsistent in respect of timing with the account of Lorna Andrew and the casualty surgeon was therefore re-interviewed on the instructions of Crown Counsel and asked specifically for an opinion as to the earliest time prior to her examination on 20 August when the injury could have been inflicted, and whether it was possible that it could have been inflicted as early as 12 August. She remained of the opinion that the injury was no older than 72 hours, but

considered that it might indeed have been only a day old. She said it was definitely not so old as seven or eight days, and said that she had no hesitation in confirming her opinion that it was no older than 72 hours.
Faced with this evidence, Crown counsel concluded that the medical evidence could not provide corroboration of Lorna Andrew's identification of McGuire. Crown counsel was, however, of the view that corroboration might come from the recovery at McGuire's home of clothing fitting the description given by Miss Andrew, but which consisted of common items. It was known that forensic scientific examination of clothing of Lorna Andrew and Gavin McGuire had still to be completed, and it was decided to proceed to service of an indictment while the results were awaited.
McGuire was, accordingly, indicted to appear at the sitting of the High Court at Kilmarnock commencing on 27 November 1995. The scope for forensic scientific examination was limited, not least by the passage of time before McGuire was apprehended. One matter which was explored was the investigation of a cosmetic stain on McGuire's jacket. On 17 November 1995, the procurator fiscal was advised that line of investigation had proved negative.
The case was plainly a thin one, and there is no question of anyone not appreciating that until the last minute. The case was considered carefully at every stage, particularly because of McGuire's previous record. A number of lines of inquiry were pursued, right up to 17 November. However, by then it was clear that there was only one possible line of corroborating evidence—the injury—but the medical evidence did not corroborate, but actually contradicted, the victim's evidence. If the doctor's evidence as to the timing of the injury was correct, the injury could not have been caused by a bite from Lorna Andrew.
The matter was considered closely by the Advocate Depute—the prosecutor who was assigned to the case—and he discussed the case with my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It was agreed that the case should not proceed to trial at this time on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If it did, the outcome would inevitably have been an acquittal by the judge on the basis that there was no case to answer. An acquittal would have served no purpose and the case could never be brought to trial again. Keeping the case open preserved the option of bringing the matter to trial at a later date if further evidence became available. The accused was liberated on 28 November, after the situation had been explained to Lorna Andrew.
On 16 December 1995, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl, was sexually assaulted and murdered in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Donohoe: The Minister has not referred to some of the evidence. We have had a meeting with the Lord Advocate. It was suggested that independent evidence was taken from the police surgeon and that a professor from one of the hospitals—I suppose it was the dental hospital—suggested that there was enough evidence to convict, and that there would have been corroboration from that evidence. The Minister has not referred to that. Is he about to? Has he received the same advice as us?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I have received the same advice. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating what


I am about to say. As a result of police investigations after this terrible murder, the police apprehended Gavin McGuire and charged him with murder. The position with regard to the earlier charges was reviewed in the course of the investigation of the murder. Nothing had changed with regard to sufficiency of evidence on these charges, except in so far as the subsequent crime might be of evidential value in relation to them and they might be of evidential value in relation to the murder case.
This arose from the doctrine of mutual corroboration, known as the Moorov doctrine after a leading case in the 1930s. This doctrine can be invoked where separate similar crimes are charged. Where an accused is tried on two or more charges alleging similar acts that are so connected in time, character and circumstances as to justify an inference that they are instances of a course of similar conduct systematically pursued by him, the evidence of a single witness in relation to one charge may be corroborated by the evidence of another single witness or from a single source in relation to another.
Crown counsel took the view that the evidence in the murder case might be capable of providing corroboration of Lorna Andrew's evidence in the earlier case. However, as matters stood, the medical evidence contradicted Lorna Andrew's evidence. Accordingly, further inquiries were instructed in relation to the injury to McGuire's finger and the regius professor of forensic medicine and science at Glasgow university, Peter Vanezis, and the professor of oral pathology, Donald MacDonald, were invited to consider a photograph and enlargements of the injury to McGuire's finger that had been taken on 20 August 1995, and to express an opinion on the origin and timing of the injury in relation to the date of the photograph. The casualty surgeon who had originally examined McGuire was re-interviewed.
The result of these inquiries was certainly to alter the nature of the available evidence about the injury to McGuire's finger and to suggest that it could have been a bite mark made in the correct time frame to be consistent with Lorna Andrew's evidence.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whether it strengthened the case to the point of providing corroboration of her evidence beyond reasonable doubt was another, more difficult, question. Professor Vanezis was of the opinion that the injury to the finger was entirely consistent with Lorna Andrew's story and was in the range of one to two weeks old. Professor MacDonald, who is a recognised international expert in the field of identification of suspects from teeth marks, could not state with any degree of probability that the injury was caused by a tooth, but said that it was consistent with Lorna Andrew's account in that her account could not be disproved or ruled out. Neither could wholly discount other causes of the injury.
The casualty surgeon, who remained the only medically qualified person to have seen the actual injury, was shown the photograph of the injury and now expressed the view that it was an old, rather than a fresh, injury. The medical and expert evidence taken together certainly now raised the possibility that the injury had been caused by a tooth, but it did not raise any clear degree of probability that the injury had been thus caused and there was no question of matching the injury to a specific tooth, as has been achieved in other cases involving forensic odontology.
The hon. Members have asked why these further inquiries were not carried out at an earlier stage and before McGuire was liberated on 28 November. The medical evidence available at the time unequivocally ruled out the timing of the injury as being consistent with Lorna Andrew's account. Only one doctor—a casualty surgeon—saw the actual wound. I am advised that it is very difficult to obtain expert opinion evidence from a photograph of a single small wound. Once the doctor had been re-interviewed and had stated that the wound was definitely no more than 72 hours old, there did not appear to be any benefit in bringing in experts who would not, of course, be able to see the actual injury.
The effect of the medical and expert evidence now available was to remove the contradiction of Lorna Andrew's evidence of identification of McGuire. It was now possible to put forward her evidence under reliance on the doctrine of mutual corroboration, relying on the tragic source of evidence from the murder case. It was on that basis that Crown counsel instructed that the charges relating to the assault on Lorna Andrew be included in the indictment for the murder of Mhairi Julyan.
Prior to the trial, the defence applied to separate the charges on the ground that it would be prejudicial to McGuire to be tried at the same time on both the murder and earlier charges. Although this application was opposed by the Crown and it was explained to the trial Judge, Lord Clyde, that the Crown intended to rely on the doctrine of mutual corroboration in proving the earlier charges, Lord Clyde exercised his discretion to grant the application for separation of charges.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister will understand that we want to study closely what he has just said, particularly why the second and third opinions from the most expert people in the field were not sought before McGuire was released. Given the enormous circumstantial evidence that existed that McGuire had committed the assault, what degree of observation was he under after he was released?
According to the Minister, McGuire was released only because the assault could not be proven conclusively to the point that it could be taken to court. However, a strong element of suspicion—to say the least—persisted. Were there any orders that McGuire should be kept under observation because it was possible that charges could be brought against him in relation to the assault if evidence could be put together?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question. I will make inquiries and write to him. Obviously, it may be perceived that an individual is a threat to certain individuals in the community, so in certain circumstances the police have observation techniques in place. If he studies what I have already said, it explains why further expert evidence was not called. Incidentally, it is not always easy to get more than one expert casualty surgeon to examine someone after a crime. It is not always easy to lay on several experts at the same time.

Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop the narrative a little more? The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants.
As has been mentioned, the trial proceeded on the murder charge and McGuire was ultimately convicted on 30 May and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 30 years. Lord Clyde continued the case until the next day and said to the Advocate Depute that he wished to hear from him as to the Crown's intentions in respect of the earlier charges.
McGuire's conviction and sentence were clearly especially significant in the Crown's consideration as to the next step in the matter. The earlier charges now stood alone. The position as it existed before McGuire's release again applied, with the sole difference that further opinion evidence had been obtained in respect of the injury to McGuire's finger. That evidence did not provide the necessary corroboration and one can speculate only as to the effect of the contradictions in the evidence if it were placed before a court.
On any view, it would clearly have been inappropriate to proceed immediately to trial in respect of the earlier charges, because it would have been impossible to secure a fair trial at that time in the light of the massive publicity surrounding the proceedings in the murder case and the revelation of all McGuire's previous convictions. Lord Clyde refused the motion and deserted the case simpliciter—that means altogether. The effect was to bring proceedings to an end.
All the Crown wanted on 31 May was time to consider further the question of proceedings in relation to the attack on Lorna Andrew because the charges were serious and deserved further consideration. There was no question of the Crown attempting to gag the media. The Crown put all the charges on the indictment. It was only because two of them were "separated" that the judge made an order, at the defence's request, delaying publication of reporting in relation to the earlier charges.
The Crown never sought an order prohibiting any reporting that there were outstanding charges, except in the context of reports of what was said in court. It was the judge who decided to make an order prohibiting any reporting that suggested that there were outstanding charges.
On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I have given the fullest explanation that can properly be given of the decisions that have been taken. This has been a distressing matter and, as I have said, the working group will examine the case as part of its work of promoting good practice. I repeat to the hon. Gentlemen that the Secretary of State's approach in his letter to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North contains significant proposed changes to the law, which, if implemented, would give a significant degree of extra protection not only to women, but to the community in general, which should be generally supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.